WASHINGTON — The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) applauds the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision pausing Executive Order 14160 nationwide. In State of Washington v. Trump, the court ruled yesterday that EO 14160, which would deny citizenship to children born of parents who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents, violates the plain language of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It also concluded that a nationwide injunction was warranted to award the states challenging EO 14160 complete relief.
“We are grateful that the court recognized what NAPABA has argued from the beginning—EO 14160 undermines the constitutional promise of an equal claim of citizenship to all persons born in the United States and runs against nearly 127 years of history, precedent, and practice,” said Thy Bui, President of NAPABA.
NAPABA and a coalition of its affiliates filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit (along with the First Circuit and the Fourth Circuit) and explained that EO 14160 distorts the holding of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Wong Kim Ark upheld the conferral of citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. The brief underscored this precedent’s historical significance and the role of Asian Americans in shaping our nation’s foundational immigration and civil rights precedents.
“If implemented, EO 14160 would exact disproportionate harm on the Asian American community,” said Priya Purandare, Executive Director of NAPABA. “The question of a child’s citizenship in the United States ought not to be dependent on the stature or circumstances of their parents. Nor should it turn on whether a child is born in one state versus another. For the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to be vindicated, birthright citizenship must apply to all children across the United States. We are grateful that the court agreed.”
The Ninth Circuit recognized Wong Kim Ark’s precedential weight. Despite the harsh legal environment for Chinese Americans living in the 19th century under the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Geary Act, Wong Kim Ark, a young Chinese American who was born in San Francisco to noncitizen parents, “acquired United States citizenship by birth.”
The U.S. Constitution demands that the same must be true for children born today. Consistent with the Citizenship Clause’s plain language, EO 14160 must ultimately be set aside.
###
The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) represents the interests of over 80,000 Asian Pacific American (APA) legal professionals and over 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.
WASHINGTON – On his first day in office, President Donald J. Trump issued executive orders that jeopardize the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for all persons born in the United States, the right to seek asylum, the refugee resettlement system, the LGBTQ+ community, and several other critical areas impacting our community as outlined below. The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association condemns these actions unequivocally. They run counter to the core values of NAPABA, the interests of the Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AANHPI) community, and the tenets of this Nation.
Birthright Citizenship for U.S.-Born Individuals
Since the end of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment promised future generations that they would be treated equally under the law. It also included an equal claim to citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of stature or the circumstances of their parents. The executive order upends that promise. It refuses to recognize the birthright citizenship of any child born in the United States to a moth er who is lawfully present on a temporary basis, like those on work or student visas, and a father who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.
The Asian American community is no stranger to such unconstitutional attacks. More than 125 years ago, a young Chinese American, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, sought to return to the United States after a trip to visit his family in China. The government denied him entry and claimed that he was not an American citizen. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that a child born in the United States to noncitizen parents is entitled to automatic citizenship. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Congress confirmed that understanding in federal law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1401.
Wong Kim Ark is settled law. If the executive order is left to stand, countless families within the Asian American community—the majority of whom are immigrants and the children of immigrants—would be impacted, unsettling their lives. The fundamental constitutional guarantee to citizenship cannot be discarded by a stroke of the pen, and NAPABA strongly opposes any effort to weaken the right under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Asylum, Refugee Resettlement, and Trust with Immigrant Communities
NAPABA recognizes the need to address the situation at our southern border. But we must not compromise our values as a Nation that welcomes immigrants and protects refugees. The President’s executive order eliminates any avenue for individuals—including many who hail from Asian countries—to claim asylum at the southern border. The order also suspended the entry of refugees under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
These executive actions are inconsistent with our country’s obligation under domestic and international law to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution and war. With nearly three million such refugees from Southeast Asia fleeing conflicts in the 1970s and new generations arriving since, the protections offered by the United States as a leading signatory to the International Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol are critical to uphold.
The Asian American story is one of perseverance, with countless numbers throughout history fleeing persecution for a better life in the United States. We need not turn our back on history or the generations seeking refuge. NAPABA has consistently supported the refugee resettlement program and this Nation’s long history of welcoming those from Asia seeking the protections of our Constitution.
Further, our immigrant communities are better served and safer where there is trust. Coercing state and local law enforcement agencies to carry out federal civil immigration enforcement undermines that trust and damages the relationship with the communities that they serve. For the Asian American community that endured the recent wave of anti-Asian hate, the fear of immigration consequences places an unnecessary obstacle to report and address hate crimes.
In another executive order, the President sought to restrict federal funds to jurisdictions “which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal [immigration] enforcement operations.” The choice by state and local leaders to decline voluntary cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement is not only lawful, but one that prioritizes the best interests of their communities. Jurisdictions ought not to be penalized for advancing public safety in their region.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
In a call to action several months ago, NAPABA emphasized how the majority of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives serve to increase access and opportunity, not stifle them. President Trump’s action to eliminate those efforts in the federal government is misguided and impacts AANHPI communities. The executive order purports to advance “equal dignity and respect,” yet its actions yield the opposite.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts minimize bias and barriers while fostering unity. And contrary to the executive order, not only do such initiatives advance the promises of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they bring greater meritocracy to our workplaces, unlocking individual potential and belonging across the board where everyone has a fair shot at success.
LGBTQ+ Dignity
Every person, regardless of how they identify their gender, deserves respect, dignity, and the equal protection of the law. Another executive order attacks and jeopardizes the transgender and broader LGBTQ+ community, potentially undermining workplace and school protections, and denying access to essential public services and health care.
NAPABA firmly believes in the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community. Just recently, NAPABA opposed H.R. 28, which would exclude those in the transgender, nonbinary, and intersex community from athletic programs in schools. The policies of government ought to be guided by the inclusion of all segments of our communities, not the exclusion of the most vulnerable.
Capital Punishment
In another executive order, the President reversed the last administration’s moratorium on capital punishment and reauthorized the Attorney General to pursue the death penalty. NAPABA stands opposed to the death penalty, which is disproportionately imposed on members of minority groups, individuals suffering from mental illness, and individuals raised in poverty. It does not deter crime, and it is not necessary for the administration of justice. We reiterate our call that the death penalty be abolished.
NAPABA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization representing the interests of well over 80,000 AANHPI legal professionals. Our community is diverse, spanning across cultures, language, and political ideologies. NAPABA has worked diligently with presidents, administrations, and congressional members of both parties to advance the interests of our community.
But as an organization of legal professionals, we bear a special responsibility to uphold the rule of law. Regardless of the presidential administration, NAPABA will continue to advance justice, with the AANHPI community at the forefront along with all communities of color, our values, and our policy positions.
### The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) represents the interests of over 80,000 AANHPI legal professionals and nearly 90 national, state, and local APA bar associations. NAPABA is a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities. Through its national network, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of all backgrounds in the legal profession.
The AABANY Law Review is pleased to announce the winners of its inaugural Scholarly Paper Prize and Student Note Competition:
Greg Robinson (Professor of History at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) for his article, In Defense of Birthright Citizenship: The JACL, the NAACP, and Regan v. King. The Article tells the story of Regan v. King, in which West Coast nativists brought suit in federal court to disenfranchise American citizens of Japanese origin. The case reaffirmed the birthright citizenship of all Americans (first recognized by the Supreme Court in its 1898 decision Wong Kim Ark) and represents a pioneering instanceof multiracial coalition-building as the NAACP allied itself with the Japanese American Citizens League to fight for their constitutional rights.
Daniel Bowman (Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law) for his note, Justifying Disparate Impact: Why a Discriminatory Effect Standard is Essential to the Fair Housing Act. Daniel’s note examines the historical development of the disparate impact standard under Title VII and the Fair Housing Act, and considers the upcoming Supreme Court case of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., which will address the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.
In addition to a cash prize, both authors’ pieces will appear in the AABANY Law Review’s winter issue, and Prof. Robinson will be speaking about his paper at the NAPABA Northeast Regional/AABANY Fall Conference. Congratulations to both, and thanks to everyone who submitted! For more information about the AABANY Law Review, please visit http://www.aabanylawreview.org/ or contact lawreview@aabany.org.
