(Washington) The decree of American president Donald Trump calling into question the law of the soil is unconstitutional, judged a federal court of appeal on Wednesday, confirming the blocking of the text decided by a lower jurisdiction.
This presidential decree, signed in January by Donald Trump on the first day of his mandate as part of a revision of the American migration policy, is the subject of numerous appeals to justice and is currently blocked by the federal justice.
“The federal court (which decided to block, editor’s note) correctly concluded that the interpretation proposed by the presidential decree, namely the negation of the citizenship of many people born in the United States, was unconstitutional. We fully agree with this, “wrote Judge Ronald Gould, of this Federal Court of Appeal sitting in San Francisco.
In the United States, soil law is guaranteed by the 14the Amendment to the Constitution, which allows anyone born in the United States to obtain American nationality.
Donald Trump’s presidential decree would prevent the federal government from issuing passports, citizenship certificates or other documents to children born on American soil, unless one of its two parents has nationality or has permanent resident status.
His administration affirms that on the 14the Amendment, adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War (1861-1865) to guarantee rights to former slaves and their children, does not concern children of undocumented migrants or people with the status of visitors.
The Supreme Court, a majority conservative and seized by the Trump administration, did not rule on the constitutionality of the presidential decree, but limited the power of judges on June 27 to block the decisions of the executive which they consider to be illegal.
By six votes against three, the highest court in the United States considered that the decisions of national scope issued by federal judges “(exceeded) probably the powers conferred by the congress in the federal courts”.
On Wednesday, the Federal Court of Appeal sitting in San Francisco, however, judged that the Federal Court of Seattle, of a lower jurisdiction, “(had not) abused its discretion” by deciding on a blocking on the scale of the country.
