Certainly! Here is a clear, human-readable summary of the Fox News article, expanded and organized into well-structured paragraphs, approximately 1200 words in length:
---
**Summary of the Fox News Article on Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order and Judicial Response**
The debate over birthright citizenship in the United States has been reignited by recent actions taken by former President Donald Trump and the subsequent legal challenges that have followed. Central to this controversy is the long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born on American soil. The issue has become a flashpoint in the broader discussion around immigration policy, national sovereignty, and the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary.
**Foundations of American Sovereignty and the Constitution**
According to the article, a core principle of American governance is the sovereignty of its people. Unlike the monarchy from which the United States broke away—where the king or queen is the ultimate sovereign and grants limited rights to their subjects—America’s system is built on the idea that sovereignty flows from God to the people. The people, in turn, delegate certain powers to the federal and state governments through the U.S. Constitution, which is essentially a “loan agreement” outlining the scope and limits of government authority.
This distinction is crucial in understanding the current debate, the article argues, because it underscores the belief that the American people never surrendered their ultimate right to control the nation’s borders or determine the composition of its populace. The Constitution, including its amendments, did not transfer this core power to unelected federal judges. The judiciary, therefore, should not have the authority to override the will of the people or the president when it comes to fundamental questions of national membership and border control.
**Historical Background: The Fourteenth Amendment and Its Interpretation**
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted after the Civil War, was primarily designed to guarantee citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their descendants. It states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens. Over the years, however, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been interpreted in ways that, the article claims, have strayed from its original intent.
One of the key arguments presented is that illegal immigrants are not truly “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the full legal sense. The article points out that certain groups, such as foreign diplomats and members of invading armies, are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction for the purposes of birthright citizenship. Similarly, it asserts, illegal immigrants remain citizens of their home countries and are not eligible to serve in the U.S. military or government. Their presence in the U.S. is not sanctioned by law, and in many cases, they work clandestinely to avoid detection by authorities.
The Supreme Court addressed related issues in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), ruling that the children of American Indians were not automatically granted citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment because they were not considered fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time. Congress later passed a law specifically granting citizenship to Native Americans. The article uses this precedent to question why, if American Indians were initially excluded, the children of illegal immigrants would be included under the current interpretation.
**President Trump’s Executive Order on Birthright Citizenship**
In response to what he sees as an abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, President Trump issued an executive order on January 20, seeking to restrict birthright citizenship. Under the terms of the order, children born in the United States to mothers who are illegal immigrants, or who are present only on a temporary basis, would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship. An exception is made if the child’s father is an American citizen or a legal permanent resident. The executive order is forward-looking and would not strip citizenship from those already born in the country prior to its effective date; it would only apply to children born 30 days after the order comes into force.
The article emphasizes that this executive action reflects a “common sense” approach, aligning with the idea that citizenship should not be granted automatically to the children of those who are present in the country illegally or on a temporary basis. It aims to address the perceived loophole that encourages illegal immigration—specifically, the practice known as “birth tourism,” where individuals come to the United States specifically to give birth and secure citizenship for their children.
**Judicial Challenges and the Supreme Court’s