Pregnant women file lawsuit against Trump administration for ending birthright citizenship
Originally published by The 19th. The Michigan Advance is a member of The 19th Reporting Network.
Sometime towards the end of July or the beginning of August, Monica, a Venezuelan immigrant, is anticipating the arrival of her baby in South Carolina. However, she is aware that her child will not have a citizenship, making them a citizen of nowhere.
In 2019, the Venezuelan immigrant and her partner sought refuge in the United States through the Temporary Protected Status program for Venezuelans. They were driven by the economic and political crisis in their home country and aspired to establish a permanent home in the United States.
After settling in South Carolina and finding work while awaiting an interview with immigration officials, Monica and her partner faced a new concern. Six years into their time in the United States, Monica became pregnant, and now, twelve weeks into her pregnancy, they are filled with worry about their child’s citizenship. With the Trump administration’s new policy on birthright citizenship and Venezuela’s ongoing troubles and lack of diplomatic ties with the United States, their family feels uncertain about what the future holds.
Monica, who preferred to remain anonymous due to concerns about her family’s asylum petition, expressed her confusion over why her child would not be entitled to the same rights as other children born in the country, regardless of their immigrant status. She emphasized the importance of finding a solution, as her child could potentially become stateless and not have any citizenship.
Monica is among a group of five pregnant women who have taken legal action by filing a lawsuit in federal district court in Maryland. This legal challenge aims to question the constitutionality of the executive order issued by the Trump administration, which seeks to terminate birthright citizenship. The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law filed the lawsuit on behalf of these five women, as well as two immigrant advocacy groups, CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (ASAP).
The Trump administration’s order has faced numerous legal challenges, including a lawsuit that seeks to exclude certain infants from obtaining U.S. citizenship. Under this order, two categories of infants would be affected. The first category includes infants born to a mother who is in the country unlawfully and a father who is neither a citizen nor a permanent resident. The second category includes infants born to a mother who is authorized to be in the country temporarily and a father who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.
People in the United States with a work, student, or tourist visa are part of the latter group.
Any infants born after February 19 would be affected by the order, which would effectively deprive them of legal documents like Social Security cards and U.S.-issued passports.
The executive order’s lack of specificity has caused confusion among families and lawyers regarding its exact impact. It only mentions infants born to a mother and a father, leaving the fate of children born to single or widowed mothers, as well as those born to queer couples with a nonbirthing parent who is a U.S. resident or citizen, unclear.
Many immigrants who are covered by various visa programs are eagerly waiting for more information to determine if their temporary status will be affected. It is important to note that the order does not provide a clear definition of temporary status, leaving these individuals uncertain about their future.
Rupa Bhattacharyya, the legal director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown, criticized the executive order, highlighting the lack of thought and uncertainty surrounding its issuance. She expressed concern about the order attempting to undo centuries of American history.
In the Oval Office, just hours after assuming office, Trump confidently signed the order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” He expressed his belief that his administration has strong grounds to defend this policy.
The Justice Department under Trump is anticipated to argue that a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment, particularly the clause stating “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” enables the administration to exclude newborns that it does not consider to be under its jurisdiction.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with several of its state branches, has filed a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of three immigrant advocacy groups. They argue that the order is in violation of the Constitution and would deprive affected infants of essential healthcare and nutrition.
A pregnant woman who is due in March and seeking asylum is the lead plaintiff in another lawsuit filed by the Lawyers for Civil Rights and two Massachusetts-based immigrant advocacy groups. The lawsuit argues that the policy would essentially strip citizenship rights from newborn infants and their parents, which is considered punishment and unconstitutional.
The order issued by the president and Congress to end a constitutional right is being challenged in federal district court in Massachusetts by the attorneys general of 18 states and two cities, namely San Francisco and Washington, D.C. They argue that neither the president nor Congress have the authority to abolish a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Additionally, four more attorneys general have filed a similar lawsuit in the Western District of Washington.
Monica, along with other expecting parents, expressed their ongoing concern and confusion regarding the uncertain future of their children’s immigration status.
During a call with reporters on Wednesday, shortly after the lawsuit was filed, she expressed her difficulties at 12 weeks into her pregnancy. Instead of being able to solely focus on the health of her baby, she finds herself overwhelmed with stress, anxiety, and depression. The situation has brought about concerns that her child may not be able to acquire U.S. citizenship.
Monica and her partner, who used to work as a physician and an environmental engineer in Venezuela, have been trying to find work in the United States as a house cleaner and in construction. They have been diligent in abiding by the law, working hard, and fulfilling their tax obligations.
“After six years, we have made the decision to start a family. We believe that it is time to move forward and this is an important step for us. We now feel settled in this country,” Monica expressed, highlighting the fact that the long waiting period for a permanent decision due to the asylum program’s backlog could extend their waiting time for another ten years.
Monica and her partner may face difficulties in obtaining Venezuelan citizenship for their child due to the absence of a Venezuelan embassy or consulate in the United States.
According to Conchita Cruz, who is the co-executive director of ASAP, reaching out to the consulates of their home countries can potentially endanger the safety of other asylum seekers or jeopardize their asylum claims.
A pregnant woman named Liza, who is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, came to the United States from Russia with her partner and sought asylum. Liza and her partner fear persecution if they were to return to Russia, which is why they are unable to safely apply for Russian citizenship for their unborn child, who is expected to arrive in May.
Federal agencies must issue public guidance by February 19 regarding their implementation of the policy. There is a chance that a court may intervene before this deadline, temporarily halting enforcement until a lengthy legal battle unfolds.
Many expectant immigrants are currently facing a great deal of uncertainty.
Monica expressed her concerns about the executive order and its implications for families like hers. She highlighted the confusion it has caused, particularly for those who are in the country under asylum applications or Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Monica questioned whether the order would truly affect individuals in these circumstances.
Post Comment