&w=3840&q=100)
‘Is my baby going to be a citizen?': US Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship triggers fear among immigrants
The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. read more
The US Supreme Court's decision on Friday has sown confusion and anxiety among immigrant families particularly those with expectant mothers over the future of birthright citizenship in the country.
The ruling, delivered by the court's conservative majority on Friday allows an executive order by President Donald Trump to partially move forward. The order, issued on his first day back in office this January seeks to end the automatic granting of US citizenship to children born on American soil unless at least one parent is a US citizen or legal permanent resident.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Though three lower court judges had blocked the measure nationwide, citing constitutional concerns, the Supreme Court did not directly rule on the order's legality. Instead, it curbed the ability of judges to issue broad, nationwide injunctions, opening the door for the policy to take effect in some states while legal battles continue in others.
That partial green light has created uncertainty about how the ruling will be applied and who it will affect, particularly in the 28 states that did not challenge the executive order. Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups have since reported a surge in calls from worried parents and expectant immigrants trying to understand what the decision means for their children's citizenship.
One of them is Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker living in Houston and due to give birth in September. After scanning news reports, she told AP she was left more confused than reassured. 'There are not many specifics. I don't understand it well,' she said. Her main concern: what if her baby is born without any nationality? 'I don't know if I can pass on my citizenship. I also don't know if I can add her to my asylum claim. I just don't want her to be stateless.'
Trump has framed his crackdown on birthright citizenship as part of a broader immigration reform agenda, arguing that current policies serve as a 'magnet' for migrants seeking to give birth in the U.S. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said at a White House briefing.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Legal experts, however, warn that the current situation risks creating a fragmented and chaotic system. Kathleen Bush-Joseph of the Migration Policy Institute cautioned that different states could now interpret and apply the order differently. 'Would individual hospitals have to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents? It's an extremely confusing patchwork,' she said.
In response to the ruling, advocacy groups filed an amended lawsuit in Maryland federal court on Friday afternoon seeking class-action protection for individuals who may be denied citizenship under the new policy.
The fear is already palpable on the ground. Lynn Tramonte of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance recounted receiving a call from a man on a temporary visa whose pregnant wife was due soon. Worried that Ohio wasn't among the states challenging the policy, he wanted to know how he could safeguard his child's citizenship.
Some groups—such as CASA in Maryland and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, remain shielded from the policy under prior court rulings, but it remains unclear whether people in other states could join these organizations to gain the same protection.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
For US-born Betsy, a recent high school graduate from Virginia and a CASA member, the policy feels deeply personal. Her Salvadoran parents were undocumented when she was born. 'It targets innocent kids who haven't even been born yet,' she said, asking to withhold her full name for safety.
Others are also grappling with the implications. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana and a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, recently gave birth. On Friday, she got a call from a pregnant friend—also undocumented—terrified about what might happen under Louisiana's Republican administration. 'She asked, 'If my baby is born here, will she still be a citizen?'
As the legal process unfolds and enforcement details remain murky, expectant immigrant parents are left in limbo unsure whether their US-born children will be granted the very citizenship once considered a constitutional birthright.
With inputs from agencies
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Confusion prevails over next State Police Chief as LDF govt mulls options beyond UPSC list
Former Director General of Prosecution Asaf Ali termed the move 'foolhardy,' stressing that the state must adhere to the directives laid down by the Supreme Court. 'Nothing is above the Supreme Court verdict which has given proper directions in the Prakash v. Union of India. It clearly states that the state government will go with the three names shortlisted by the UPSC. UPSC selection body chooses the top ranks with the length of service, very good record and range of experience for heading the department. Nobody can violate it and move forward." he added. For the states that have in-charge DGPs, the tenure is two years. And also, why would any government look at other states when already a Supreme Court verdict is clear. It will not stand if legally challenged. For example, in Sen Kumar's case, the state government was not able to violate the law. As in the case of Kerala Police Act, it has been diluted for convenience. In a special circumstance like if UPSC list is late, if other states are choosing in-charge DGP, that should not be the norm. There is a Supreme Court verdict and nothing can't be done above that,' he said.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Israel-Iran War: How Many Homes Can Be Lit Up With 1 Kg Of Enriched Uranium?
Last Updated: A single kilogramme of uranium-235 can theoretically generate about 24 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 6,666 households for an entire year The guns may have fallen silent, but the world is still holding its breath. Just hours after US President Donald Trump declared a 'total and complete ceasefire" between Iran and Israel, effectively ending what's being termed the '12-Day War", a chilling question is being whispered across diplomatic and intelligence circles alike – Where is Iran's highly enriched uranium? This unsettling uncertainty emerged after the US carried out a series of targeted strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities. These sites, according to the US, were 'completely destroyed" using advanced bunker-busting munitions. However, while the missile strikes may have demolished infrastructure, they also raised an alarming suspicion – what if Iran moved its uranium stockpile beforehand? In May, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report confirming that Iran possessed 408.6 kgs of uranium enriched up to 60 percent purity. That's a significant jump from the 133.8 kgs recorded just three months earlier in February. For context, nuclear weapons require uranium enriched to 90 percent. US intelligence officials have long warned that a stockpile of 400 kg at 60% enrichment could be a short sprint away from weapons-grade material – enough, they say, to potentially produce up to 10 nuclear bombs. With the targeted sites now reportedly in ruins, one crucial question remains unanswered: Was the uranium there at all when the bombs hit? So far, there's been no confirmation from the IAEA, Iran, or even satellite intelligence on whether the stockpile was destroyed or hidden. What Makes Enriched Uranium So Dangerous? To understand why the world is so nervous, it's important to know what enriched uranium is and how it works. Naturally occurring uranium contains just 0.7% of the fissile isotope uranium-235. Power reactors typically use fuel enriched to 3–5% U-235. Weapons, however, require enrichment to around 90%. The enrichment process involves increasing the concentration of U-235 by removing the non-fissile U-238. This makes the uranium 'fissile," meaning its atoms can be split by neutrons, unleashing vast amounts of energy; whether for peaceful electricity or devastating explosions. If channeled into civilian use, enriched uranium has almost mythical energy potential. A single kilogramme of uranium-235 can theoretically generate about 24 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity. That's roughly 20 terajoules or 1,111 megawatt-hours – enough to power 6,666 households for an entire year, based on average annual consumption. To put this in perspective, coal, our most common source of thermal energy, doesn't even come close. It would take 160 tonnes of coal to produce the energy in just 1 kg of uranium. But the potential doesn't stop at homes. Theoretical models suggest that 1 kg of enriched uranium could: Run a 1.5-ton air conditioner continuously for 12 million hours (or about 1,370 years) Fully charge 1.2 billion mobile phones Power 3,00,000 electric cars for a single full charge (assuming 80 kWh per charge). Of course, these are idealised estimates. In the real world, energy is lost at every stage – from heat conversion to grid transmission to end-use. The silence from Iran's leadership on the uranium question has only deepened the anxiety. While officials have condemned the strikes and accused the US of 'nuclear terrorism", there's been no confirmation about whether any of the 408.6 kg of enriched uranium was destroyed, moved, or remains intact elsewhere. Meanwhile, satellite intelligence, usually swift to pick up signs of radioactive leakage or large-scale transport, has revealed little. In fact, sources within US defence circles privately admit that the intelligence on Iran's nuclear movements was 'inconclusive" in the lead-up to the strikes.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Punjab: Saraya Industries got no foreign funds since 2007, says Sukhbir
Jun 29, 2025 08:20 AM IST Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) president Sukhbir Singh Badal on Saturday dared Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Mann to prove that Saraya Industries, in which party leader Bikram Singh Majithia had an inherited share of 11%, had received even one rupee in foreign funding from 2007. Lashing out at the state government over Majithia's arrest, the SAD chief said the case was registered only because Majithia had been 'exposing' the dispensation over various issues. Sukhbir also challenged the CM to prove the disproportionate assets case, asserting that the entire case was based on a bundle of lies. (HT Photo) The Punjab Vigilance Bureau arrested Majithia on June 25 in a disproportionate assets case allegedly involving laundering of ₹ 540 crore 'drug money'. It was Sukhbir's maiden press conference after the arrest of Majithia. Regarding Saraya Industries Limited, he said, 'The only foreign funding received by Saraya Industries was in March,2006 when it received ₹ 35 crore from United States-based Clearwater Corporation in exchange for 25% shares in the company. Majithia entered politics in 2007.' He also made it clear that all transactions of Saraya Industries were scrutinised and accepted by the Income Tax department. Sukhbir also challenged the CM to prove the disproportionate assets case, asserting that the entire case was based on a bundle of lies. Sukhbir asserted that Mann had pressurised the state DGP to register the case because 'Majithia had been constantly exposing him and his corrupt and immoral cabinet colleagues'. He termed the government action 'vendetta politics'. 'An affidavit which the government had submitted to the Supreme Court in 2023 while appealing for cancellation of Majithia's regular bail and seeking his custodial interrogation in an NDPS Act was used verbatim to register this new case against him. This was done despite the fact that the Supreme Court rejected the affidavit in April this year and refused to overturn the regular bail given to Majithia by the high court or grant the request for custodial interrogation,' Sukhbir said. The SAD chief further said that the apex court even asked the AAP government to complete the probe in two days 'following which it has now taken this new route to engage in political vendetta'. He also condemned the manner in which former DGP Siddharth Chattopadhyaya and ex-deputy director of Enforcement Directorate Niranjan Singh were called by the Vigilance Bureau to share information regarding the drug case. He claimed that his party had conclusive proof of the corrupt activities of the CM and his wife.
