The Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump's command to end citizenship

Donald Trump's advance of ending the citizenship of birth rights is argued at the US Supreme Court in a case that could help promote his agenda about immigration and other questions.

The court hears arguments on Thursday whether judge of the under court can block the presidential regulations for the entire country.

Trump moved to citizenship within a few hours after returning to the White House in January and signed an order that said children born in the United States, without papers immigrants, no citizens.

Three federal judges did not enter into force, part of a court who blocked Trump's executive commands. Trump claims that they did not have the authority to issue the nationwide orders.

If the Supreme Court of Trump agrees, he could continue his use of executive commands in order to comply with campaign promises without waiting for the approval of the congress, with limited checks by the dishes.

It is unusual for the Supreme Court to prevent a hearing in May and there is no indication of when it can rule. In his first term, Trump appointed three of the nine judges at the court of conservative mechanical engineering.

Many legal experts say that the president does not have the authority to end the citizenship of the birth rights, since he is guaranteed by the 14th change in the US constitution. Even if Trump wins the current case, he may have to fight other legal challenges.

In particular, the 14th amendment provides that “all people born or naturalized in the United States and are subject to jurisdiction are citizens”.

In the Executive Ordinance, Trump argued that the expression “Jurisdiction” meant that automatic citizenship does not apply temporarily to the children of immigrants without papers or to people in the country.

Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington showed – or universal – one -fired one that prevented the command from being enforced.

The instructions prompted the Trump administration to argue that the lower courts exceeded their powers.

“The universal facilities have reached epidemic dimensions since the beginning of the current administration,” said the government in a court report in March. “The members of this court have long recognized the need to pay the legality of the universal orders.”

At the beginning of this week, an official from the Ministry of Justice announced reporters that Trump's ability to carry out his political agenda “fundamentally thwart”, and that the government sees this as a “direct attack” on the presidency.

The case that is negotiated in front of the Supreme Court comes from three separate lawsuits, both from immigration lawyers and 22 US states.

The Trump administration has asked the court to decide that the orders can only apply to the immigrants or the plaintiff states mentioned in the case – which would enable the government to at least partially fulfill Trump's command, even if the right -wing struggles are continued.

According to the Ministry of Justice, almost 40 different legal proceedings have been submitted since the beginning of the second Trump administration.

In a separate case, two present dishes blocked the Trump administration to enforce a military transgender ban, although the Supreme Court finally intervened and the directive was enforced.

An end – even a partial – the birthright of citizenship could affect tens of thousands of children in the United States, one of the complaints argued that a generation of people who were born “would only have lived in the United States,” second -class status “.

Alex Cuic, an immigration lawyer and professor at the Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, said the BBC said that a potential ending of birth law could force citizenship to become undocumented or even “stateless”.

“There is no guarantee that the countries that their parents come from would take them back,” he said. “It wouldn't even be clear where the government could deport it.”