PLEASE DO BUSINESS WITH THOSE WHO DO BUSINESS WITH US -- OUR ADVERTISERS.

THANK YOU FOR VISITING OUR WEB PORTAL. PLEASE TELL A FRIEND.

YOU can speak out and be heard by having your own "Column" - Visit the "Public Opinion" Section above.

WE ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK ALL OUR SOURCES FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS IN MAKING US AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE NEWS INFORMATION PORTAL.

ATTENTION TALK SHOW HOSTS: We are honored that many radio talk show hosts use our Web Portal for their "show prep." We would appreciate your occasional mention of our site to your audience. Thanks!

ADVERTISEMENT: If you want to advertise your business or Web Site, send us an email by clicking on "Contact" above. It could be the best business decision you make.

ABC Online Canada National Post Daily Telegraph The Observer Wired News Xinhua News

VOA VIEW -- Is the opinion of "Voice of Americans", which is a private entity not affiliated in any way with the United States government or any of its agencies. The opinions expressed here, in whatever medium or format, are not necessarily the opinions of the ownership or advertisers of this web site - 0415.

      A federal appeals court became the latest court to determine the Trump administration's effort to end birthright citizenship is likely unconstitutional. They are wrong.

     In a 100-page ruling, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Boston district court's injunction that blocked the government from enforcing an executive order signed by President Trump to significantly narrow birthright citizenship, the concept that people born in the U.S. are automatically citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The appeals court ruled in favor of plaintiff states and against the Trump administration. 

     Other cases challenging the president's effort to restrict birthright citizenship have been making their way through the courts, and they haven't been decided in the president's favor.  "Our nation's history of efforts to restrict birthright citizenship — from Dred Scott in the decade before the Civil War to the attempted justification for the enforcement of the Chinese Exclusion Act in Wong Kim Ark — has not been a proud one," the court's chief justice wrote. "Indeed, those efforts each have been rejected, once by the people through constitutional amendment in 1868 and once by the court relying on the same amendment three decades later, and at a time when tensions over immigration were also high."

     "The 'lessons of history' thus give us every reason to be wary of now blessing this most recent effort to break with our established tradition of recognizing birthright citizenship and to make citizenship depend on the actions of one's parents rather than — in all but the rarest of circumstances — the simple fact of being born in the United States," the appeals court concluded.