Securing the border just became more important than ever
President Donald Trump suffered a defeat Tuesday when a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that his executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and certain temporary visa holders was contrary to federal law. Roberts traces the history of birthright citizenship from English common law to the colonies, through the Constitution, and up to its rejection by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford.Advertisement The Reconstruction-era Congress explicitly sought to reject Dred Scott, first by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then by passing the 14th Amendment the same year.
- ▪President Donald Trump suffered a defeat Tuesday when a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that his executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and certain temporary visa holders was contrary to
- ▪Roberts traces the history of birthright citizenship from English common law to the colonies, through the Constitution, and up to its rejection by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v.
- ▪Sandford.Advertisement The Reconstruction-era Congress explicitly sought to reject Dred Scott, first by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then by passing the 14th Amendment the same year.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
President Donald Trump suffered a defeat Tuesday when a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that his executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants and certain temporary visa holders was contrary to federal law. A smaller 5-4 majority held that it was inconsistent with the 14th Amendment as well.As stinging as this defeat may feel for many conservatives, the outcome should be taken as a reason to refocus efforts on enforcing the law and passing new laws to tighten America’s borders, deport illegal immigrants, and let fewer temporary migrants into the country.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Washington Examiner.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Washington Examiner
