Washington State: Three local pregnant women sue Trump administration over birthright citizenship order

Are the women illegal aliens?

The lib report does not say

Why is that crucial bit of information withheld?
The article refers to them as non-citizens in the second paragraph.

I'm not familiar with how many ways you can be in the country legally other than on a tourist, student or work visa, while not being a citizen but personally I would think it a good idea if they would make a distinction between those who are not citizens but in the country lawfully versus those who are in the country unlawfully.

So if you come here lawfully and have a child I believe that child is entitled to U.S. citizenship. I think the biggest complaint of the people though are those who are not here lawfully and have children as a means to enter into the welfare system that pays for the care & upbringing of the offspring. Since the child cannot manage the money itself, the money goes to its caregiver, thus the incentive.
 
Are the women illegal aliens?

The lib report does not say

Why is that crucial bit of information withheld?
Brother, Washington State is more messed up than California by whacko liberals. The worst of California invaded Washington and took over. They are textbook looney tunes. :cuckoo:
 
The article refers to them as non-citizens in the second paragraph.

I'm not familiar with how many ways you can be in the country legally other than on a tourist, student or work visa, while not being a citizen but personally I would think it a good idea if they would make a distinction between those who are not citizens but in the country lawfully versus those who are in the country unlawfully.

So if you come here lawfully and have a child I believe that child is entitled to U.S. citizenship. I think the biggest complaint of the people though are those who are not here lawfully and have children as a means to enter into the welfare system that pays for the care & upbringing of the offspring. Since the child cannot manage the money itself, the money goes to its caregiver, thus the incentive.
My first reaction to the story is that all three women are illegal aliens

The obvious course of action is to deport them before they give birth
 
The article refers to them as non-citizens in the second paragraph.

I'm not familiar with how many ways you can be in the country legally other than on a tourist, student or work visa, while not being a citizen but personally I would think it a good idea if they would make a distinction between those who are not citizens but in the country lawfully versus those who are in the country unlawfully.

So if you come here lawfully and have a child I believe that child is entitled to U.S. citizenship. I think the biggest complaint of the people though are those who are not here lawfully and have children as a means to enter into the welfare system that pays for the care & upbringing of the offspring. Since the child cannot manage the money itself, the money goes to its caregiver, thus the incentive.
Nonsense. That's how Russian, and Chinese get their kids US citizenship; thus greasing the skids for getting themselves access to this country. That's the exact loophole they use for these "birthing vacations". Technically legally here, and "oops"! "I just shit out a kid! Seeing as how he's an Americian, I guess I'll just have to stay to take care of him." Oh yeah. Now about all that money. We're gonna need the taxpayer to help us out"...
 
Lawfare is the Lefts main go to, right after screaming "RAYCISMS"!!!
Lawfare in my opinion is unethical and unAmerican

But libs have a legal right to test trump decisions in court

However they often abuse that right in detail
 
A new lawsuit challenging President Donald J. Trump’s recent executive order on birthright citizenship has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to court documents.
It has to be assumed that Trump's lawyers knew (he doesn't know much about this stuff himself, obviously) that this idea would not fly with the 14th Amendment sitting there.

But on the other hand, he's done what he does: He's broken down the door, doing the bull-in-the-china-shop thing, and made it an issue. So how this ultimately ends up going is now up in the air, instead of being a simple constitutional issue.

The bar to delete an Amendment is pretty high, but I sure as hell wouldn't make any assumptions on where this goes. And who knows what kinds of workarounds are possible. Obviously they'll deport anyone they can that they learn are pregnant, but that's piecemeal for the most part.
 
If I get a chance to access the complaint on Pacer I'll post it here unless someone else has access to a free version of the pleading.

Since the plaintiffs name Trump specifically, does this mean, according to that now infamous SCOTUS ruling that naming him in any legal proceeding is pointless? And I was taught that before you can sue the government you have to get their permission due to Rex non potest peccare ("the King can do no wrong") - sovereign immunity:

A new lawsuit challenging President Donald J. Trump’s recent executive order on birthright citizenship has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to court documents.
The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), a Seattle-based non-profit organization, filed the suit on behalf of three pregnant non-citizen women and a proposed class of others similarly situated, arguing the order violates the U.S. Constitution.
The suit names President Trump and several federal officials and agencies as defendants, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio; the Department of State; Acting Attorney General James McHenry; the Department of Justice; Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman; the Department of Homeland Security; Acting Commissioner for Social Security Michelle King; the Social Security Administration; Acting Secretary of Agriculture Gary Washington; the Department of Agriculture; and Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Jeff Wu.
According to court documents, the Executive Order, signed on January 20, seeks to change the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees birthright citizenship.
The order directs federal agencies, starting 30 days after signing, to deny documentation of U.S. citizenship to newborns whose mothers were “unlawfully present” in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents or to newborns whose mothers were in the U.S. with “temporary” status and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time of birth.
The lawsuit argues the executive order seeks to end jus soli, the legal principle of birthright citizenship based on being born on U.S. soil, and that it contradicts the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The suit highlights that this order would establish a prospective-only rule, resulting in disparate treatment based on birth date and parental status.
It states that it would lead to a situation where children born within days of each other could have drastically different citizenship statuses depending solely on the circumstances of their parents, creating a discriminatory effect.
The order also fails to define key terms, like “unlawfully present” and “temporary status,” adding to the order’s vagueness.
The suit further argues the executive order would deny children born to non-citizens the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, such as the ability to travel with a U.S. passport, the right to re-enter the country, access to higher education, the ability to seek employment, and access to crucial safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The lawsuit notes that the order could result in statelessness for children who are not recognized as citizens by the laws of their parents’ countries.
It also asserts that the order would strip away rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that “put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy.”
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs, all represented by NWIRP, include three pregnant women: Delmy Franco Aleman of Lynnwood, a non-citizen from El Salvador who is due on March 26, 2025; Cherly Norales Castillo of Seattle, a non-citizen from Honduras who is in removal proceedings and due on March 19, 2025; and Alicia Chavarria Lopez of Bothell, a non-citizen from El Salvador who has applied for asylum and is due on July 21, 2025.
All three women have lived in the U.S. for several years, with the longest, Ms. Lopez, having lived in the U.S. since 2016. Ms. Aleman has lived in the U.S. since 2015. Ms. Castillo has been in the U.S. since 2023.
Each said fears of family separation because of the executive order, as well as concerns that their children will be denied their rights and will be at risk of removal from the U.S.
The suit seeks to represent a class of all pregnant people living in Washington State who will give birth in the U.S. on or after February 19, 2025, and whose children would be affected by the Executive Order, where neither parent of the expected child is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth, and all children born under those same conditions.
The lawsuit requests a preliminary and permanent injunction to halt enforcement of the Executive Order; a declaration that children born in the United States are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status; a declaration that the Executive Order violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law; and that the court set aside any agency action implementing the Executive Order.
©2025 Cox Media Group

They were probably all knocked up by the same guy. :laughing0301:
 
gimmegrints.webp
 
It has to be assumed that Trump's lawyers knew (he doesn't know much about this stuff himself, obviously) that this idea would not fly with the 14th Amendment sitting there.

But on the other hand, he's done what he does: He's broken down the door, doing the bull-in-the-china-shop thing, and made it an issue. So how this ultimately ends up going is now up in the air, instead of being a simple constitutional issue.

The bar to delete an Amendment is pretty high, but I sure as hell wouldn't make any assumptions on where this goes. And who knows what kinds of workarounds are possible. Obviously they'll deport anyone they can that they learn are pregnant, but that's piecemeal for the most part.
The bar to delete an Amendment is pretty high,

We dont need to change the 14th Amendment

All it takes is at least 5 members of the SC to “reimagine” what is means
 
The bar to delete an Amendment is pretty high,

We dont need to change the 14th Amendment

All it takes is at least 5 members of the SC to “reimagine” what is means
It's not even a "reimagination". Just a stone cold recognition of its intent; and therefore it's application.
 
The bar to delete an Amendment is pretty high,

We dont need to change the 14th Amendment

All it takes is at least 5 members of the SC to “reimagine” what is means

The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War and was only intended to give citizenship to former slaves. It had nothing to do with people who would enter this country illegally and drop their crotch-fruit all over the place.
 
If I get a chance to access the complaint on Pacer I'll post it here unless someone else has access to a free version of the pleading.

Since the plaintiffs name Trump specifically, does this mean, according to that now infamous SCOTUS ruling that naming him in any legal proceeding is pointless? And I was taught that before you can sue the government you have to get their permission due to Rex non potest peccare ("the King can do no wrong") - sovereign immunity:

A new lawsuit challenging President Donald J. Trump’s recent executive order on birthright citizenship has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to court documents.
The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), a Seattle-based non-profit organization, filed the suit on behalf of three pregnant non-citizen women and a proposed class of others similarly situated, arguing the order violates the U.S. Constitution.
The suit names President Trump and several federal officials and agencies as defendants, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio; the Department of State; Acting Attorney General James McHenry; the Department of Justice; Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman; the Department of Homeland Security; Acting Commissioner for Social Security Michelle King; the Social Security Administration; Acting Secretary of Agriculture Gary Washington; the Department of Agriculture; and Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Jeff Wu.
According to court documents, the Executive Order, signed on January 20, seeks to change the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees birthright citizenship.
The order directs federal agencies, starting 30 days after signing, to deny documentation of U.S. citizenship to newborns whose mothers were “unlawfully present” in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents or to newborns whose mothers were in the U.S. with “temporary” status and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time of birth.
The lawsuit argues the executive order seeks to end jus soli, the legal principle of birthright citizenship based on being born on U.S. soil, and that it contradicts the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The suit highlights that this order would establish a prospective-only rule, resulting in disparate treatment based on birth date and parental status.
It states that it would lead to a situation where children born within days of each other could have drastically different citizenship statuses depending solely on the circumstances of their parents, creating a discriminatory effect.
The order also fails to define key terms, like “unlawfully present” and “temporary status,” adding to the order’s vagueness.
The suit further argues the executive order would deny children born to non-citizens the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, such as the ability to travel with a U.S. passport, the right to re-enter the country, access to higher education, the ability to seek employment, and access to crucial safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The lawsuit notes that the order could result in statelessness for children who are not recognized as citizens by the laws of their parents’ countries.
It also asserts that the order would strip away rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that “put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy.”
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs, all represented by NWIRP, include three pregnant women: Delmy Franco Aleman of Lynnwood, a non-citizen from El Salvador who is due on March 26, 2025; Cherly Norales Castillo of Seattle, a non-citizen from Honduras who is in removal proceedings and due on March 19, 2025; and Alicia Chavarria Lopez of Bothell, a non-citizen from El Salvador who has applied for asylum and is due on July 21, 2025.
All three women have lived in the U.S. for several years, with the longest, Ms. Lopez, having lived in the U.S. since 2016. Ms. Aleman has lived in the U.S. since 2015. Ms. Castillo has been in the U.S. since 2023.
Each said fears of family separation because of the executive order, as well as concerns that their children will be denied their rights and will be at risk of removal from the U.S.
The suit seeks to represent a class of all pregnant people living in Washington State who will give birth in the U.S. on or after February 19, 2025, and whose children would be affected by the Executive Order, where neither parent of the expected child is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth, and all children born under those same conditions.
The lawsuit requests a preliminary and permanent injunction to halt enforcement of the Executive Order; a declaration that children born in the United States are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status; a declaration that the Executive Order violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law; and that the court set aside any agency action implementing the Executive Order.
©2025 Cox Media Group
What a coincidence they all sued at the same time. This couldn't have been centrally coordinated, could it?
 
If I get a chance to access the complaint on Pacer I'll post it here unless someone else has access to a free version of the pleading.

Since the plaintiffs name Trump specifically, does this mean, according to that now infamous SCOTUS ruling that naming him in any legal proceeding is pointless? And I was taught that before you can sue the government you have to get their permission due to Rex non potest peccare ("the King can do no wrong") - sovereign immunity:

A new lawsuit challenging President Donald J. Trump’s recent executive order on birthright citizenship has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to court documents.
The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), a Seattle-based non-profit organization, filed the suit on behalf of three pregnant non-citizen women and a proposed class of others similarly situated, arguing the order violates the U.S. Constitution.
The suit names President Trump and several federal officials and agencies as defendants, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio; the Department of State; Acting Attorney General James McHenry; the Department of Justice; Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Benjamine Huffman; the Department of Homeland Security; Acting Commissioner for Social Security Michelle King; the Social Security Administration; Acting Secretary of Agriculture Gary Washington; the Department of Agriculture; and Acting Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Jeff Wu.
According to court documents, the Executive Order, signed on January 20, seeks to change the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, which guarantees birthright citizenship.
The order directs federal agencies, starting 30 days after signing, to deny documentation of U.S. citizenship to newborns whose mothers were “unlawfully present” in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents or to newborns whose mothers were in the U.S. with “temporary” status and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents at the time of birth.
The lawsuit argues the executive order seeks to end jus soli, the legal principle of birthright citizenship based on being born on U.S. soil, and that it contradicts the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The suit highlights that this order would establish a prospective-only rule, resulting in disparate treatment based on birth date and parental status.
It states that it would lead to a situation where children born within days of each other could have drastically different citizenship statuses depending solely on the circumstances of their parents, creating a discriminatory effect.
The order also fails to define key terms, like “unlawfully present” and “temporary status,” adding to the order’s vagueness.
The suit further argues the executive order would deny children born to non-citizens the rights and benefits of U.S. citizenship, such as the ability to travel with a U.S. passport, the right to re-enter the country, access to higher education, the ability to seek employment, and access to crucial safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The lawsuit notes that the order could result in statelessness for children who are not recognized as citizens by the laws of their parents’ countries.
It also asserts that the order would strip away rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that “put citizenship beyond the power of any governmental unit to destroy.”
The lawsuit’s plaintiffs, all represented by NWIRP, include three pregnant women: Delmy Franco Aleman of Lynnwood, a non-citizen from El Salvador who is due on March 26, 2025; Cherly Norales Castillo of Seattle, a non-citizen from Honduras who is in removal proceedings and due on March 19, 2025; and Alicia Chavarria Lopez of Bothell, a non-citizen from El Salvador who has applied for asylum and is due on July 21, 2025.
All three women have lived in the U.S. for several years, with the longest, Ms. Lopez, having lived in the U.S. since 2016. Ms. Aleman has lived in the U.S. since 2015. Ms. Castillo has been in the U.S. since 2023.
Each said fears of family separation because of the executive order, as well as concerns that their children will be denied their rights and will be at risk of removal from the U.S.
The suit seeks to represent a class of all pregnant people living in Washington State who will give birth in the U.S. on or after February 19, 2025, and whose children would be affected by the Executive Order, where neither parent of the expected child is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the child’s birth, and all children born under those same conditions.
The lawsuit requests a preliminary and permanent injunction to halt enforcement of the Executive Order; a declaration that children born in the United States are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status; a declaration that the Executive Order violates both the Fourteenth Amendment and federal law; and that the court set aside any agency action implementing the Executive Order.
©2025 Cox Media Group
If those three women are Illegal Aliens then they need to receive a visit from ICE... :auiqs.jpg:
 
Back
Top Bottom