Tag Archives: birthright citizenship

Mirror: CNN halts show for ‘breaking news’ as poll delivers harsh blow to Donald Trump

Posted on by
Reply

CNN’s regular broadcast was interrupted for a breaking news segment, revealing that a significant number of Americans were against Donald Trump’s latest immigration move.

Trump, who was brutally blasted over his new $250 visa fee for travelers, has often boasted about his poll numbers on immigration but the reality is very different.

I’ve separated the poll results into bullet points for readability:

  • As a poll appeared on screen, the news anchor shared, “Just 42% of Americans now approve of how he’s handled immigration,
  • with only 40% approving of his policies on deportation specifically.
  • When it comes to deportations, 55% think Trump has gone too far and that’s up sharply by 10 points since February.”
  • Another poll dissecting the different aspects of deportation showed that 53% of people were against Trump’s plan to increase the ICE Budget by billions.
  • 59% also opposed his move to end the effort to end birthright citizenship.
  • Another 57% Americans opposed the President’s hopes to build new detention centers.
  • A staggering 59% of people were against Trump’s plan to detain undocumented immigrants with no criminal record.
  • When asked if they believed “Trump’s immigration policies are making the US safer,” 53% of Americans said no.

CNN halts show for ‘breaking news’ as poll delivers harsh blow to Trump
President Donald Trump has come under fire from a new poll by CNN, which says 55% of Americans believe that he has gone ‘too far’ with his latest immigration plans

https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/donald-trump-immigration-cnn-poll-1280319

Reuters: Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Justice Department unit charged with defending against legal challenges to signature Trump administration policies – such as restricting birthright citizenship and slashing funding to Harvard University – has lost nearly two-thirds of its staff, according to a list seen by Reuters.

Sixty-nine of the roughly 110 lawyers in the Federal Programs Branch have voluntarily left the unit since President Donald Trump’s election in November or have announced plans to leave, according to the list compiled by former Justice Department lawyers and reviewed by Reuters.

The tally has not been previously reported. Using court records and LinkedIn accounts, Reuters was able to verify the departure of all but four names on the list. 

Reuters spoke to four former lawyers in the unit and three other people familiar with the departures who said some staffers had grown demoralized and exhausted defending an onslaught of lawsuits against Trump’s administration.

“Many of these people came to work at Federal Programs to defend aspects of our constitutional system,” said one lawyer who left the unit during Trump’s second term. “How could they participate in the project of tearing it down?”

Critics have accused the Trump administration of flouting the law in its aggressive use of executive power, including by retaliating against perceived enemies and dismantling agencies created by Congress.

The Trump administration has broadly defended its actions as within the legal bounds of presidential power and has won several early victories at the Supreme Court. A White House spokesperson told Reuters that Trump’s actions were legal, and declined to comment on the departures.

“Any sanctimonious career bureaucrat expressing faux outrage over the President’s policies while sitting idly by during the rank weaponization by the previous administration has no grounds to stand on,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. 

The seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures. 

Three of them said some career lawyers feared they would be pressured to misrepresent facts or legal issues in court, a violation of ethics rules that could lead to professional sanctions.

All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal dynamics and avoid retaliation. 

A Justice Department spokesperson said lawyers in the unit are fighting an “unprecedented number of lawsuits” against Trump’s agenda.

“The Department has defeated many of these lawsuits all the way up to the Supreme Court and will continue to defend the President’s agenda to keep Americans safe,” the spokesperson said. The Justice Department did not comment on the departures of career lawyers or morale in the section.

Some turnover in the Federal Programs Branch is common between presidential administrations, but the seven sources described the number of people quitting as highly unusual. 

Reuters was unable to find comparative figures for previous administrations. However, two former attorneys in the unit and two others familiar with its work said the scale of departures is far greater than during Trump’s first term and Joe Biden’s administration.

Heading for the Exit

The exits include at least 10 of the section’s 23 supervisors, experienced litigators who in many cases served across presidential administrations, according to two of the lawyers.

A spokesperson said the Justice Department is hiring to keep pace with staffing levels during the Biden Administration. They did not provide further details.

In its broad overhaul of the Justice Department, the Trump administration has fired or sidelined dozens of lawyers who specialize in prosecuting national security and corruption cases and publicly encouraged departures from the Civil Rights Division. 

But the Federal Programs Branch, which defends challenges to White House and federal agency policies in federal trial courts, remains critical to its agenda. 

The unit is fighting to sustain actions of the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency formerly overseen by Elon Musk; Trump’s order restricting birthright citizenship and his attempt to freeze $2.5 billion in funding to Harvard University.

“We’ve never had an administration pushing the legal envelope so quickly, so aggressively and across such a broad range of government policies and programs,” said Peter Keisler, who led the Justice Department’s Civil Division under Republican President George W. Bush.

“The demands are intensifying at the same time that the ranks of lawyers there to defend these cases are dramatically thinning.”

The departures have left the Justice Department scrambling to fill vacancies. More than a dozen lawyers have been temporarily reassigned to the section from other parts of the DOJ and it has been exempted from the federal government hiring freeze, according to two former lawyers in the unit.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not comment on the personnel moves.

Justice Department leadership has also brought in about 15 political appointees to help defend civil cases, an unusually high number. 

The new attorneys, many of whom have a record defending conservative causes, have been more comfortable pressing legal boundaries, according to two former lawyers in the unit. 

“They have to be willing to advocate on behalf of their clients and not fear the political fallout,” said Mike Davis, the head of the Article III Project, a pro-Trump legal advocacy group, referring to the role of DOJ lawyers in defending the administration’s policies.

People who have worked in the section expect the Federal Programs Branch to play an important role in the Trump administration’s attempts to capitalize on a Supreme Court ruling limiting the ability of judges to block its policies nationwide. 

Its lawyers are expected to seek to narrow prior court rulings and also defend against an anticipated rise in class action lawsuits challenging government policies. 

Lawyers in the unit are opposing two attempts by advocacy organizations to establish a nationwide class of people to challenge Trump’s order on birthright citizenship. A judge granted one request on Thursday.

Facing Pressure

Four former Justice Department lawyers told Reuters some attorneys in the Federal Programs Branch left over policy differences with Trump, but many had served in the first Trump administration and viewed their role as defending the government regardless of the party in power. 

The four lawyers who left said they feared Trump administration policies to dismantle certain federal agencies and claw back funding appeared to violate the U.S. Constitution or were enacted without following processes that were more defensible in court.

Government lawyers often walked into court with little information from the White House and federal agencies about the actions they were defending, the four lawyers said.

The White House and DOJ did not comment when asked about communications on cases.

Attorney General Pam Bondi in February threatened disciplinary action against government lawyers who did not vigorously advocate for Trump’s agenda. The memo to Justice Department employees warned career lawyers they could not “substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election.”

Four of the lawyers Reuters spoke with said there was a widespread concern that attorneys would be forced to make arguments that could violate attorney ethics rules, or refuse assignments and risk being fired. 

Those fears grew when Justice Department leadership fired a former supervisor in the Office of Immigration Litigation, a separate Civil Division unit, accusing him of failing to forcefully defend the administration’s position in the case of Kilmar Abrego, the man wrongly deported to El Salvador.

The supervisor, Erez Reuveni, filed a whistleblower complaint, made public last month, alleging he faced pressure from administration officials to make unsupported legal arguments and adopt strained interpretations of rulings in three immigration cases.

Justice Department officials have publicly disputed the claims, casting him as disgruntled. A senior official, Emil Bove, told a Senate panel that he never advised defying courts.

Career lawyers were also uncomfortable defending Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms, according to two former Justice Department lawyers and a third person familiar with the matter.

A longtime ally of Bondi who defended all four law firm cases argued they were a lawful exercise of presidential power. Judges ultimately struck down all four orders as violating the Constitution. The Trump administration has indicated it will appeal at least one case.

Not everybody wants to continue hanging out with a bunch of losers!

Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit
Seven lawyers who spoke with Reuters cited a punishing workload and the need to defend policies that some felt were not legally justifiable among the key reasons for the wave of departures.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/two-thirds-doj-unit-defending-trump-policies-court-have-quit-2025-07-14

The Hill: Opinion: The Supreme Court’s injunctions decision returns America to the constitutional horrors of Dred Scott

Posted on by
Reply

In ordinary times, someone could read the Supreme Court’s decision on the legality of so-called “universal injunctions” as just the latest example of an old dispute: the proper way to interpret the Constitution and the jurisdiction of federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion saying the federal district courts do not have the authority to issue such injunctions is a classic in the genre of “originalism.” 

In contrast, the dissenting opinions by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson read the law through the lens not just of its origins but with an eye to how an interpretation would affect the world beyond the courtroom. They understand that these are not ordinary times and do not want to disable the judiciary from responding when fundamental rights are at stake, in the face of an ongoing assault on the rule of law itself. 

To put it simply, with its decision in Trump v. Casa, the court has become an accomplice in President Trump’s ongoing assault on our constitutional republic. The decision has effectively removed the federal courts as a check on the Trump administration.  

But it also does grave damage to the court itself — Trump v. Casa now takes its place among the high court’s most infamous rulings. As Stephen Lubet says, it returns us to the world of its discredited Dred Scott decision, which found that the rights of Black people depended on where they lived. Just like Blacks in the antebellum world who had one status in free states and another in slave states, immigrants and others may now find themselves in a legal nether land. 

The Supreme Court’s injunctions decision returns America to the constitutional horrors of Dred Scott
With its decision in Trump v. Casa, the court has become an accomplice in President Trump’s ongoing assault on our constitutional republic.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5376627-supreme-court-universal-injunctions-ruling

Guardian: The desperate drive to secure passports for thousands of US-born Haitian kids – before it’s too late

Posted on by
Reply

Advocates in Springfield, Ohio – a city thousands of Haitians now call home – fear the fallout of Trump’s DHS revoking temporary protected status for Haitian nationals

Among the group is a small number of charity volunteers working to avoid a potential humanitarian disaster: that thousands of US-born Haitian children could become stateless, or separated from their families.

“In the last several months we realized that the closer we got to the deportations and revocation of statuses meant that all these people who have babies … if they don’t have passports for their children, how are they going to take them out of the country with them?” says Casey Rollins, a volunteer at the local St Vincent de Paul chapter.

“All you have to look at is the previous [Trump] administration.” A Reuters report from 2023 found that nearly 1,000 children separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border in 2017 and 2018 had never been reunited.

Springfield is home to about 1,217 and counting American-born Haitian children under the age of four, with several thousand more dependants under the age of 18. While the number of adults in the Ohio town of 60,000 people legally in the country on TPS is not known, local leaders estimate 10,000 to 15,000 Haitian nationals have come to Springfield, drawn by employment opportunities, since 2017. In April, data provided by the Springfield city school district to the Springfield News-Sun found that the district had 1,258 students enrolled as English language learners in K-12 schools, though that doesn’t mean all are children of Haitian descent.

For three months, Rollins, volunteers at Springfield Neighbors United and others have been working with dozens of Haitians who turn up at charity organizations seeking advice and help every day. One of the most requested issues from parents, Rollins says, is figuring out how to apply for birth certificates for their children, before it’s too late.

“If we can’t stop the deportations, we want to help get them a passport. That way, if they are deported or go to Canada or another welcoming nation, they’d be able to take the child,” she says.

“If it takes three or four months [to complete the bureaucratic process from securing a birth certificate to acquiring a passport], we have got to get moving on this.”

The desperate drive to secure passports for thousands of US-born Haitian kids – before it’s too late
Advocates in Springfield, Ohio – a city thousands of Haitians now call home – fear the fallout of Trump’s DHS revoking temporary protected status for Haitian nationals

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/04/passports-haitian-kids-tps-trump-administration

USA Today: Thanks, Supreme Court! It’s now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.

Posted on by
Reply

Any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my child under the moral tenets of my faith.

I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts.

So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion.

In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, “The Court recognized that parents have a right ‘to direct the religious upbringing of their children’ and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.”

Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are “radical left thugs that live like vermin” and describing a female vice president of the United States as “mentally impaired” and “a weak and foolish woman” are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief.

So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.)

Alito clearly doesn’t want schools teaching kids that Trump exists

As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some “Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.”

Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like “I moved on her like a bitch” and “she’s now got the big phony tits and everything” and “Grab ’em by the pussy,” that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency.

That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president.

Supreme Court is protecting children from the tyranny of love

Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called “Love Violet,” which “follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet’s ‘heart skip’ and ‘thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.’ Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine’s Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and ‘galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.’”

While my religion would define such a story as “sweet” and “loving,” Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it “hostile” to parents’ religious beliefs.

As Alito wrote, “Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it’s normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants.

Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito’s words, be “clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

I will now object to any book or classroom mention of Donald Trump

I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump’s behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith.

Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: “The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.”

Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue.

Thanks, Supreme Court! It’s now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump. | Opinion
Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/06/29/trump-supreme-court-ruling-books-maryland-parents/84380649007

NBC News: Congress set to hand Trump billions to recruit more ICE agents

Posted on by
Reply

The House-passed version of the Trump budget bill includes $8 billion to hire an additional 10,000 ICE employees over five years, with millions more for signing and retention bonuses.

President Donald Trump is on the verge of getting billions of dollars from Congress to recruit and retain agents to carry out the mass deportation campaign that was one of the central promises of his campaign.

Trump has been on a roll in his efforts to combat illegal immigration and remove undocumented immigrants from the country, and both advocates and critics of his plans say that bolstering border security and interior enforcement will make it easier for him to execute on his vision.

President Donald Trump is on the verge of getting billions of dollars from Congress to recruit and retain agents to carry out the mass deportation campaign that was one of the central promises of his campaign.

Trump has been on a roll in his efforts to combat illegal immigration and remove undocumented immigrants from the country, and both advocates and critics of his plans say that bolstering border security and interior enforcement will make it easier for him to execute on his vision.

…

The House-passed version includes $8 billion to hire an additional 10,000 ICE employees over five years, boosting the agency’s ranks by nearly 50%, and $858 million more for signing and retention bonuses. At full employment of 30,000 people, the money would cover about $28,600 per employee. Customs and Border Protection would get $2 billion to spread around for such bonuses to its larger workforce, which currently can range as high as $30,000 for new recruits.

Congress set to hand Trump billions to recruit more ICE agents
The House-passed version of the Trump budget bill includes $8 billion to hire an additional 10,000 ICE employees over five years, with millions more for signing and retention bonuses.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/congress-set-hand-trump-billions-recruit-ice-agents-rcna214990

Independent: Texas man returns from honeymoon alone after wife is arrested by ICE in US Virgin Islands

Posted on by
Reply

Taahir Shaikh of Arlington says his wife, Ward Sakeik, was detained by ICE in February in St. Thomas

A recently-married Texas couple has spent over 120 days apart after the bride was detained by ICE during their honeymoon in the US Virgin Islands.

Taahir Shaikh of Arlington says his wife, Ward Sakeik, was detained by ICE in February in St. Thomas, despite having a pending green card application and documentation of her stateless status.

“She’s considered stateless, which essentially just means you’re born in a country that doesn’t give you birthright citizenship. And since she was a Palestinian refugee that was born in Saudi Arabia, they weren’t recognized as Saudi nationals,” Shaikh told NBC DFW.

Shaikh said Sakeik was just 8 years old when her family arrived in the U.S. on a visa. Although their asylum request was denied, her lack of citizenship meant the government couldn’t deport them. Instead, they were placed under an order of supervision and required to check in with immigration authorities once a year.

…

Since then, Sakeik has graduated from the University of Texas at Arlington and now works as a wedding photographer. She has always complied with immigration rules for 14 years, Shaikh said.

…

[Her husband] says they carefully chose to travel to the U.S. Virgin Islands for their honeymoon, believing it wouldn’t jeopardize her pending immigration status.

ICE addressed Sakeik’s arrest in a statement to NBC DFW, writing, “The arrest of Ward Sakeik was not part of a targeted operation by ICE. She chose to leave the country and was then flagged by CBP trying to re-enter the U.S.

“The facts are she is in our country illegally. She overstayed her visa and has had a final order by an immigration judge for over a decade. President Trump and Secretary Noem are committed to restoring integrity to the visa program and ensuring it is not abused to allow aliens a permanent one-way ticket to remain in the U.S.”

ICE concluded, “She had a final order of removal since 2011. Her appeal of the final order was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals on February 12, 2014. She has exhausted her due process rights and all of her claims for relief have been denied by the courts.”

But as the government has already admitted, she has nowhere to go. Period. Stop. That should be the end of the story.

Texas man returns from honeymoon alone after wife detained by ICE
Taahir Shaikh of Arlington says his wife, Ward Sakeik, was detained by ICE in February in St. Thomas

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/wife-arrested-texas-ice-couple-b2774196.html

Slate: Trump Promises to Keep Terrorizing Blue Cities. It Might Come Back to Haunt Him.

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump won the presidency in part on promises to deport immigrants who have criminal records and lack permanent legal status. But his earliest executive orders—trying to undo birthright citizenship, suspending critical refugee programs—made clear he wants to attack immigrants with permanent legal status too. In our series Who Gets to Be American This Week?, we’ll track the Trump administration’s attempts to exclude an ever-growing number of people from the American experiment.

President Donald Trump’s immigration raids have disrupted life in Los Angeles in a way the mayor is comparing to COVID; they’ve created a climate of fear that’s driving people into hiding and hurting local businesses. This week, the president promised to expand those raids in blue cities, all in a futile attempt to hit 1 million deportations by the end of the year. After suggesting last week that ICE would stop targeting the agriculture and hotel industries, which disproportionately rely on immigrant labor, the administration also walked back that guidance.

And a troubling trend is emerging: As Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts get more aggressive and reckless, several elected officials who attempted to conduct oversight or question what is being done have been arrested.

…

“Overwhelmingly, Americans do not want ICE raids that focus on those without criminal records. That’s why polls show that Trump is losing voter approval on these key issues,” Mukherjee said.

Trump Promises to Keep Terrorizing Blue Cities. It Might Come Back to Haunt Him.
And Democrats keep getting arrested while trying to hold ICE accountable.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2025/06/donald-trump-brad-lander-ice-raid-los-angeles.html

New Republic: Transcript: Trump’s Threats to Defy Courts Suddenly Get More Dangerous

Posted on by
Reply

As Trump’s intent to override the courts gets more obvious, a legal commentator who closely observes MAGA lawlessness explains why the Trump-MAGA strategy here is darker than you thought.

This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.

President Donald Trump is very unhappy with how things went at the Supreme Court when it comes to his effort to end birthright citizenship. He uncorked two angry epic tirades about the High Court, essentially putting it on notice that it had better rule his way on this and other matters coming before it or else. This may look like typical Trumpian bullying and threats, but we think there’s a game going on here that people are missing. It’s that Trump is, in a very real sense, playing chicken with the Supreme Court. He’s trying to bluff the justices into constraining themselves from putting limits on Trump’s power. We’re going to explore how this really works today with one of our favorite legal commentators, Matthew Seligman, a fellow at Stanford Law School.

Best to click on the link and read the dialogue:

Transcript: Trump’s Threats to Defy Courts Suddenly Get More Dangerous
As Trump’s intent to override the courts gets more obvious, a legal commentator who closely observes MAGA lawlessness explains why the Trump-MAGA strategy here is darker than you thought.

https://newrepublic.com/article/195392/transcript-trump-threats-defy-courts-suddenly-get-dangerous

MSNBC: The biggest takeaway from SCOTUS’ birthright citizenship hearing is not an obvious one

Posted on by
Reply

The administration’s top lawyer is telling the court it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over Donald Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship, but the biggest takeaway from those arguments has nothing to do with birthright citizenship at all. Instead, perhaps the most important moment of Thursday’s hearing came when the Trump administration’s top appellate lawyer (who was previously Trump’s personal Supreme Court advocate), Solicitor General D. John Sauer, revealed a troubling sign of creeping authoritarianism.

…

Here’s what that means in plain English: The Trump administration, through its top lawyer, is telling the Supreme Court that it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances. And contrary to Sauer’s assertion, that finds no support in long-standing DOJ policy, much less department norms.

It’s one thing to hear political actors — whether that’s the White House press secretary or even Vice President JD Vance — assert that the administration should not be bound by federal court orders it considers lawless. But it’s another thing entirely to hear the administration’s top appeals lawyer say as much in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Lisa Rubin: The biggest takeaway from SCOTUS’ birthright citizenship hearing is not an obvious one
The administration’s top lawyer is telling the court it doesn’t believe it has to comply with lower court orders in all circumstances.

https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-authoritarianism-rcna207270