birthright citizenship Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.

The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds The Birthright Citizenship

Martha Arias — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 00:22:52 +0000

Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship: What Families Should Know

In my recent conversation today with Radio Caracol, we discussed one of the most important immigration and constitutional issues affecting families in the United States: birthright citizenship.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Barbara. The Court held that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.

This decision is important because the Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the state where they reside. The executive order at issue attempted to deny citizenship to certain children born in the United States based on the immigration status or temporary presence of their parents. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation.

For many families, this decision brings clarity. Children who were born in the United States continue to be recognized as U.S. citizens, even if their parents were undocumented or were temporarily present in the country at the time of birth.

However, it is very important to understand what this decision does not do. A U.S. citizen child does not automatically give lawful immigration status to the parents, does not automatically stop deportation, and does not automatically create a green card case for the parents.

A U.S. citizen generally must be at least 21 years old to petition for a parent. USCIS explains this requirement on its official page about bringing parents to live in the United States as permanent residents. In most family-based cases, the process begins with Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, but USCIS also explains that filing or approval of Form I-130 does not, by itself, give the relative immigration status or an immigration benefit. Families should also review the government’s general explanation of family-based immigration and sponsoring a relative.

During the interview, I also explained that this decision should not be confused with approval of “birth tourism.” The U.S. Department of State has stated that consular officers will deny a B visa application when they have reason to believe the applicant is traveling primarily to give birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for the child. You can read the State Department’s guidance here: Birth Tourism Update.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Immigration law is deeply personal because it affects children, parents, homes, businesses, and futures. A headline may sound simple, but the consequences for each family can be very different. The correct legal answer often depends on the person’s entry history, current status, prior immigration record, possible inadmissibility issues, and whether the case must be handled inside the United States or through a U.S. consulate abroad.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Dedicated Immigration Law Attorney in Kendall

If you have questions about birthright citizenship, family petitions, consular processing, adjustment of status, or another immigration matter, I encourage you to seek legal guidance based on your specific situation.

For professional immigration legal services, call U.S. Immigration Law Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. and schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every immigration case is different, and you should consult with an immigration attorney about your specific circumstances.

ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT:

RADIO CARACOL:
Bueno, Martha, vamos a explicarle a la audiencia qué significa jurídicamente esto que acabo de leer sobre la decisión de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, la decisión de la Corte fue una decisión muy específica. La pregunta que se le hizo a la Corte Suprema fue si las personas que nacen en Estados Unidos, de padres indocumentados o de personas que están temporalmente presentes en el país, si esos niños son ciudadanos americanos.

La Corte dijo que sí. ¿Por qué? Porque esas personas están sujetas a las leyes o a la jurisdicción de Estados Unidos. La Enmienda 14 de la Constitución de Estados Unidos dice que todas las personas que nacen en Estados Unidos están sujetas a la jurisdicción del país y si residen dentro del pais, son ciudadanos americanos.

El gobierno, cuando emitió esa acción ejecutiva el año pasado, sostuvo que los hijos nacidos de padres indocumentados, o de personas que estaban temporalmente en Estados Unidos, no eran ciudadanos americanos porque, según esa interpretación, no estaban sujetos a la jurisdicción de Estados Unidos porque no residian en Estados Unidos.

El que estaba indocumentado segun esta interpretacion no esta bajo juridiccion y el que esta solo temporalmente, no reside dentro de los Estados Unidos. Esto era como la interpretacion de ese memorandum de la administracion.

La Corte estuvo en desacuerdo. La Corte dijo que no; que la Enmienda establece claramente que las personas que nacen dentro de Estados Unidos están sujetas a las leyes y a la jurisdicción de este país. Entonces, esa interpretación, “sujeto a la jurisdicción”, fue básicamente lo que se interpretó.

RADIO CARACOL:
Bueno, Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, ¿quiénes se benefician directamente con esta decisión? ¿Aplica para hijos de inmigrantes indocumentados, para personas que están con visas de turismo, estudiantes o de trabajo? ¿Quiénes se benefician directamente?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Se benefician todos. Fíjate que esto tiene un efecto hacia atrás y hacia adelante, es decir, es retroactivo porque aplica para el pasado y para el futuro, a menos que el Congreso determine otra cosa.

Los hijos de inmigrantes indocumentados que han nacido en el país son ciudadanos americanos. Imagínate si la Corte hubiera dicho otra cosa. Básicamente, medio Estados Unidos se podría desocupar, porque ¿cómo se le va a quitar la ciudadanía a todas esas personas que ya nacieron aquí y que siempre se han considerado ciudadanos?

RADIO CARACOL:
Claro, esa era precisamente la pregunta que te iba a hacer. ¿Qué habría pasado si la Corte hubiera respaldado la orden del presidente Trump? Imagínate.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:

Un día me senté a tomarme un cafecito en la mañana y a pensar en eso. Me decía: vamos a suponer que se diera esa locura de que la Corte dijera que no tienen ese derecho. ¿Cuántos millones de ciudadanos de Estados Unidos serían despojados de su ciudadanía? ¿Qué impacto económico, social y de todo tipo podría tener eso?

Imagínate que, por decir una cifra baja, cinco millones de personas recibieran una notificación diciéndoles: “Mire, señor, usted ya no es ciudadano americano. Venda su casa, venda su carro, coja su maleta y váyase”. Personas que tienen títulos universitarios, empresas, empleados, familias y toda una vida construida aquí.

Yo pensaba en cuál sería el impacto de eso y realmente me parecía abrumador. No creo haber escuchado que algo así haya pasado en ninguna parte del mundo.

El efecto de esta decisión, entonces, es que todos aquellos que nacieron aquí, aunque sus padres fueran indocumentados, siguen siendo ciudadanos americanos.

Ahora, en segundo lugar, quienes vienen temporalmente y, por una emergencia o alguna circunstancia, tienen hijos aquí, también tendrían hijos ciudadanos americanos. Pero ahí sí yo les diría a las personas que tengan cautela y que no vengan a tener hijos a Estados Unidos con ese propósito, porque eso tampoco es correcto.

Esa es una de las razones por las que algunas personas apoyaban la iniciativa o la acción ejecutiva del presidente. Claro, a nadie le parece correcto que exista turismo de embarazo o turismo por nacimiento.

RADIO CARACOL:
Para allá iba yo con una pregunta más adelante. Estaba leyendo un artículo de The Guardian donde se menciona que, tras este fallo, el presidente Trump y algunos aliados estarían buscando la forma de hacerlo por vía legislativa, aunque enfrentarían importantes obstáculos constitucionales.

Por tu experiencia, Martha, ¿crees que esta decisión es definitiva?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Desde mi conocimiento legal y de jurisprudencia, considero que, bajo la Constitución de este país, es definitiva. Sin embargo, todos sabemos que el Congreso de un país, concretamente aquí en Estados Unidos, puede cambiar la Constitución.

Ahora bien, eso se ha hecho muy pocas veces. La Constitución de Estados Unidos es una de las cartas magnas que más ha perdurado en el tiempo y no ha tenido tantas modificaciones.

La Corte Suprema interpreta la Constitución, pero no la cambia. En este caso, el Congreso también tiene que seguir la Constitución, porque el Congreso no puede emitir leyes inconstitucionales.

Entonces, si la Corte ya dijo que esto es constitucional, yo no soy constitucionalista, obviamente, pero pienso que va a ser muy complicado que el Congreso pueda modificar la Constitución para cambiar esto.

Ahora, el gobierno, el Ejecutivo en este caso, sí tiene todo el derecho de actuar de otra forma. De hecho, ya lo estaba haciendo.

Por ejemplo, cuando mujeres embarazadas entran a Estados Unidos para tener sus hijos aquí y luego el consulado se da cuenta, he conocido muchos casos en mi oficina en los que les cancelan las visas. También les exigen mostrar prueba de que pagaron el parto, porque muchas de ellas venían, tenían a sus hijos con Medicaid y luego se iban.

Entonces, todo va en su punto medio. Creo que muchas personas estamos de acuerdo en decir que quienes pagamos impuestos en Estados Unidos no tenemos por qué pagar el parto de una señora que quiere venir únicamente a tener su hijo aquí.

RADIO CARACOL:
Sí, eso es el famoso turismo por nacimiento. Incluso se dice que ofrecían paquetes turísticos para que las mujeres vinieran a tener sus hijos acá. Los niños nacían, eran ciudadanos americanos, y después se iban sin pagar la cuenta.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactamente. Eso los consulados lo han tomado con mucho cuidado y, como te digo, están negando visas y también están quitando visas.

Yo tuve clientes que me llamaban y me decían: “Es que nosotros ya teníamos todo preparado, nos debemos ir”. Y yo les decía: “Me parece que ustedes no deben hacer eso”.

Incluso, muchos de ellos tenían a uno de los padres como ciudadano americano. Y en esos casos yo les decía: si ustedes son ciudadanos americanos, ese hijo, aunque nazca fuera de Estados Unidos, también puede ser ciudadano americano por el padre o la madre. Entonces, no hay necesidad de incurrir en eso.

Sé que este tema es controversial y no a todo el mundo le cae bien, pero así es. En muchos países del mundo, la persona que nace en ese país adquiere la ciudadanía de ese país. Son pocos los países cuya Constitución establece reglas distintas. Por ejemplo, Alemania tiene reglas más estrictas sobre este tema.

Me parece que va a ser complicado para el Congreso cambiar esto. Y si miramos el tiempo que le queda al Congreso actual, teniendo elecciones en noviembre, creo que el tiempo es corto para lograr un cambio constitucional de esta naturaleza.

RADIO CARACOL:
Martha, como el tiempo apremia, ahora vamos a dar tu número telefónico porque hay muchas preguntas e inquietudes sobre este tema y sobre otros asuntos de inmigración.

Me están escribiendo por Instagram una persona pregunta si esta decisión cambia algo para los procesos migratorios de los padres. Es decir, ¿el hecho de que un hijo sea ciudadano protege automáticamente a sus padres?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
El hijo que es ciudadano americano puede pedir a sus padres, y puede continuar haciéndolo. Ahora, si esos padres están indocumentados y el hijo todavía no tiene 21 años, eso no los protege automáticamente. El hijo tiene que esperar hasta cumplir 21 años para poder pedir a sus padres.

Y si el padre o la madre entró ilegalmente a Estados Unidos, tampoco significa que esté protegido simplemente porque el hijo sea ciudadano. Lo pueden deportar igual.

Pero, en términos de petición familiar, sí: el hijo ciudadano americano puede pedir a sus padres cuando tenga 21 años o después de cumplir los 21 años.

RADIO CARACOL:
Claro que sí. Pues vamos a hacer lo siguiente. En temas de inmigración hay mucha desinformación, especialmente con este tema de la Corte. Si usted quiere estar bien informado, si conoce a alguien que tenga una situación relacionada con un niño que nació aquí y es ciudadano americano, o si hay nerviosismo en su familia por este tema, lo invito a que se comunique con la abogada Martha Arias.

Ella es abogada de inmigración y tiene muchísima experiencia para responder preguntas sobre este tema y sobre otros asuntos migratorios.

Martha, vamos a dar muy despacio tus datos, tu número telefónico y tus redes sociales para que la audiencia de Caracol se comunique contigo.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Claro. El número telefónico es 305-671-0018. Repito: 305-671-0018. Tenemos otro número que es el 305-233-3110

Mi página web es [www.ariasvilla.com](http://www.ariasvilla.com). También pueden buscarme en Google escribiendo “Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración” o “Martha Arias immigration attorney”.

En Instagram nos pueden seguir como @martha_arias98.

RADIO CARACOL:
Perfecto. Y en tu página también estás compartiendo mucha información.

Parece que hemos perdido comunicación con la abogada Martha Arias, pero repito el número telefónico: 305-671-0018. Nuevamente, 305-671-0018. Ese es el número telefónico de la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias.

Si usted tiene esta inquietud o cualquier otra pregunta de inmigración, si conoce a un familiar o a un amigo que necesite orientación, puede comunicarse con ella. Repito: 305-671-0018. Ese es el número telefónico de la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias.

HOST:
Well, Martha, let’s explain to the audience what this legally means, what I just read about the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, the decision of the Court was a very specific decision. The question that was asked to the Supreme Court was whether people who are born in the United States, of undocumented parents or of people who are temporarily present in the country, whether those children are American citizens.

The Court said yes. Why? Because those people are subject to the laws or to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says that all people who are born in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the country and if they reside within the country, they are American citizens.

The government, when it issued that executive action last year, maintained that the children born of undocumented parents, or of people who were temporarily in the United States, were not American citizens because, according to that interpretation, they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they did not reside in the United States.

The person who was undocumented, according to this interpretation, is not under jurisdiction, and the person who is only temporarily here does not reside within the United States. This was like the interpretation of that memorandum of the administration.

The Court disagreed. The Court said no; that the Amendment clearly establishes that people who are born inside the United States are subject to the laws and to the jurisdiction of this country. So, that interpretation, “subject to the jurisdiction,” was basically what was interpreted.

HOST:
Well, Martha Arias, immigration attorney, who benefits directly from this decision? Does it apply to children of undocumented immigrants, to people who are here with tourist visas, student visas, or work visas? Who benefits directly?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Everyone benefits. Notice that this has an effect backward and forward, that is, it is retroactive because it applies to the past and to the future, unless Congress determines otherwise.

The children of undocumented immigrants who have been born in the country are American citizens. Imagine if the Court had said something else. Basically, half of the United States could empty out, because how are we going to take citizenship away from all those people who were already born here and who have always been considered citizens?

HOST:
Of course, that was precisely the question I was going to ask you. What would have happened if the Court had supported President Trump’s order? Imagine.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
One day I sat down to have a little coffee in the morning and to think about that. I said to myself: let’s suppose that this craziness happened, that the Court said they do not have that right. How many millions of citizens of the United States would be stripped of their citizenship? What economic, social, and all kinds of impact could that have?

Imagine that, to say a low number, five million people received a notice telling them: “Look, sir, you are no longer an American citizen. Sell your house, sell your car, grab your suitcase and leave.” People who have university degrees, businesses, employees, families, and an entire life built here.

I thought about what the impact of that would be, and it really seemed overwhelming to me. I do not think I have heard that something like that has happened anywhere in the world.

The effect of this decision, then, is that all those who were born here, even if their parents were undocumented, continue to be American citizens.

Now, secondly, those who come temporarily and, because of an emergency or some circumstance, have children here, would also have American citizen children. But there I would tell people to be cautious and not to come to the United States to have children with that purpose, because that is not correct either.

That is one of the reasons why some people supported the initiative or the executive action of the president. Of course, it does not seem correct to anyone that pregnancy tourism or birth tourism should exist.

HOST:
That is where I was going with a question later. I was reading an article from The Guardian where it mentions that, after this ruling, President Trump and some allies would be looking for a way to do it through legislation, although they would face important constitutional obstacles.

From your experience, Martha, do you believe this decision is definitive?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
From my legal knowledge and jurisprudence, I consider that, under the Constitution of this country, it is definitive. However, we all know that the Congress of a country, specifically here in the United States, can change the Constitution.

Now, that has been done very few times. The Constitution of the United States is one of the fundamental charters that has endured the most over time and has not had so many modifications.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, but it does not change it. In this case, Congress also has to follow the Constitution, because Congress cannot issue unconstitutional laws.

So, if the Court already said that this is constitutional, I am not a constitutional attorney, obviously, but I think it is going to be very complicated for Congress to be able to modify the Constitution to change this.

Now, the government, the Executive in this case, does have every right to act in another way. In fact, it was already doing so.

For example, when pregnant women enter the United States to have their children here and then the consulate finds out, I have known many cases in my office in which their visas are canceled. They are also required to show proof that they paid for the delivery, because many of them came, had their children with Medicaid, and then left.

So, everything goes in its middle point. I believe that many people agree in saying that those of us who pay taxes in the United States do not have to pay for the delivery of a woman who wants to come only to have her child here.

HOST:
Yes, that is the famous birth tourism. It is even said that tourist packages were offered so that women would come to have their children here. The children were born, they were American citizens, and then they left without paying the bill.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. The consulates have taken that very carefully and, as I tell you, they are denying visas and also taking visas away.

I had clients who called me and told me: “It is that we already had everything prepared, we should go.” And I told them: “It seems to me that you should not do that.”

Even many of them had one of the parents as an American citizen. And in those cases I told them: if you are American citizens, that child, even if born outside the United States, may also be an American citizen because the father or mother is a citizen. So, there is no need to incur in that.

I know this topic is controversial and it does not sit well with everyone, but that is how it is. In many countries of the world, the person who is born in that country acquires the citizenship of that country. There are few countries whose Constitution establishes different rules. For example, Germany has stricter rules about this topic.

It seems to me that it is going to be complicated for Congress to change this. And if we look at the time that the current Congress has left, with elections in November, I believe the time is short to achieve a constitutional change of this nature.

HOST:
Martha, since time is pressing, now we are going to give your telephone number because there are many questions and concerns about this topic and about other immigration matters.

People are writing to me on Instagram, and one person asks whether this decision changes something for the immigration processes of the parents. That is, does the fact that a child is a citizen automatically protect his or her parents?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
The child who is an American citizen can petition for his or her parents, and can continue doing so. Now, if those parents are undocumented and the child is not yet 21 years old, that does not protect them automatically. The child has to wait until turning 21 years old to be able to petition for his or her parents.

And if the father or the mother entered the United States illegally, it also does not mean that he or she is protected simply because the child is a citizen. They can be deported anyway.

But, in terms of a family petition, yes: the American citizen child can petition for his or her parents when he or she is 21 years old or after turning 21 years old.

HOST:
Of course. Well, we are going to do the following. In immigration topics there is a lot of misinformation, especially with this topic of the Court. If you want to be well informed, if you know someone who has a situation related to a child who was born here and is an American citizen, or if there is nervousness in your family about this topic, I invite you to communicate with attorney Martha Arias.

She is an immigration attorney and has a great deal of experience answering questions about this topic and about other immigration matters.

Martha, we are going to give your information very slowly, your telephone number and your social media, so that the Caracol audience can communicate with you.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Of course. The telephone number is 305-671-0018. I repeat: 305-671-0018. We have another number, which is 305-233-3110.

My website is www.ariasvilla.com. You can also look for me on Google by writing “Martha Arias, immigration attorney” or “Martha Arias immigration attorney.”

On Instagram you can follow us as @martha_arias98.

HOST:
Perfect. And on your page you are also sharing a lot of information.

It seems that we have lost communication with immigration attorney Martha Arias, but I repeat the telephone number: 305-671-0018. Again, 305-671-0018. That is the telephone number of immigration attorney Martha Arias.

If you have this concern or any other immigration question, if you know a family member or a friend who needs guidance, you can communicate with her. I repeat: 305-671-0018. That is the telephone number of immigration attorney Martha Arias.

The post The U.S. Supreme Court Upholds The Birthright Citizenship appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Breaking: Supreme Court rejects limits on birthright citizenship.

Martha Arias — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:18:15 +0000

Breaking Immigration News: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump’s proposed restrictions on birthright citizenship.

The Court’s decision reaffirms that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This is an important constitutional and immigration law development. I will continue reviewing the full opinion and will share a more detailed explanation soon.

For immigration guidance, please speak with a qualified immigration attorney about your specific situation.

The post Breaking: Supreme Court rejects limits on birthright citizenship. appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Supreme Court Decision on Birthright Citizenship

Martha Arias — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 12:07:06 +0000

A Historic Citizenship Case Is Pending

What the Supreme Court may decide about children born in the United States.

Last Updated: June 25, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue two major immigration decisions that could affect many families, workers, employers, and communities across the United States. One case involves birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. The other involves Temporary Protected Status, commonly known as TPS, for Haitian and Syrian nationals.

At the time of this article, the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in both matters, but final decisions have not yet been issued. That means current rights and protections remain in place unless and until the Court rules otherwise.

Because these cases involve constitutional rights, humanitarian protection, work authorization, and family security, it is important for immigrant families to stay calm, informed, and prepared.

Why These Supreme Court Cases Matter

Immigration law often changes through Congress, federal agencies, court decisions, and executive action. But Supreme Court decisions carry special weight because they can shape how laws are interpreted nationwide.

These two pending cases are especially important because they touch two very different but deeply personal areas of immigration law:

Whether the federal government may limit birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States.

Whether courts may review the government’s decision to terminate TPS protections for certain countries.

For many families, these are not abstract legal questions. They affect children, parents, work permits, protection from deportation, travel planning, and long-term immigration strategy.

The Birthright Citizenship Case: Trump v. Barbara

The first case involves Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order was signed on January 20, 2025, and seeks to limit automatic U.S. citizenship for certain children born in the United States.

Under the order, federal agencies would not recognize U.S. citizenship for certain U.S.-born children if, at the time of birth, the mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order also applies to certain situations where the mother was lawfully but temporarily present in the United States, such as on a visitor, student, work, or tourist visa, and the father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

The administration argues that these children are not fully “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The challengers argue that the order violates the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, federal citizenship law, and long-standing Supreme Court precedent.

What the Fourteenth Amendment Says

The first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This language has been central to birthright citizenship in the United States for generations.

Federal law also states that a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a national and citizen of the United States at birth.

The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the administration’s narrower interpretation of that language is allowed under the U.S. Constitution and the Federal Law.

The Role of United States v. Wong Kim Ark

A major precedent in this debate is the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the Court recognized birthright citizenship for a child born in the United States to parents who were subjects of China and who were living in the United States but were not U.S. citizens.

The challengers rely heavily on that case. They argue that birth in the United States has long carried citizenship, with only narrow exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats.

The government argues that Wong Kim Ark does not resolve the status of children born to undocumented parents or parents present only temporarily.

This is why the Supreme Court’s ruling may be historic. The decision may clarify, narrow, or reaffirm how birthright citizenship is understood under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Current Status of Birthright Citizenship

As of this writing, birthright citizenship remains in effect.

The federal government is currently blocked from enforcing the main parts of Executive Order 14160. However, federal agencies have been permitted to prepare implementation guidance related to the order.

This distinction is important. Preparation is not the same as full enforcement. Families should not assume that a final change has already happened.

Children born in the United States remain protected under the current legal framework unless the Supreme Court issues a decision that changes how the law is applied.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Martha L. Arias (@martha_arias98)

Conclusion

The birthright citizenship case before the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the most important immigration-related constitutional questions in many years. For generations, children born in the United States have been recognized as U.S. citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, with only narrow exceptions. The pending case asks whether the federal government may limit that protection for certain children born in the United States to parents who are undocumented or temporarily present.

As of this writing, birthright citizenship remains in effect. The Supreme Court has not issued its final decision, and families should be careful not to confuse political discussion, social media commentary, or proposed government action with a final change in the law.

For immigrant families, the best step right now is to stay informed, preserve important records, and seek legal guidance before making decisions that may affect a child’s citizenship, passport, immigration status, or family planning. In moments of uncertainty, reliable information matters.

Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Arias Villa, PLLC or attorney Martha L. Arias. Immigration and citizenship matters depend on each person’s specific facts, immigration history, family circumstances, documents, deadlines, and current law. If you have questions about how this issue may affect your family, you may always contact our office at 305-671-0018.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Legal Guidance Matters Right Now

If you are concerned about how the pending Supreme Court birthright citizenship case may affect your child, your family, or your immigration planning, professional legal guidance can help you understand your options and avoid unnecessary mistakes.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

The post Supreme Court Decision on Birthright Citizenship appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

A Strong Defense of Birthright Citizenship Before the Supreme Court

Martha Arias — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 19:35:00 +0000

Today’s Supreme Court hearing focused on one of the most important constitutional questions in our country: whether birthright citizenship can be limited by executive action.

In her opening statement, ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang argued that the rule has long been clear: people born in the United States are citizens. She said this principle was firmly protected by the Fourteenth Amendment so that no government official could take it away.

She also pointed to the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Wong Kim Ark, explaining that the Court already rejected a similar effort to deny citizenship based on the status of a child’s parents. According to her argument, that precedent leaves no room for the government’s new theory that a parent’s domicile should control whether a child born here is a citizen.

https://ariasvilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2026-04-01_ACLU_Birthright-citizenship-clippings_Cecillia-Wang-Opening-Statement_RC01.mp4

Wang also stressed that this issue is not only about legal theory. She warned that if the government’s position were accepted, thousands of babies born in the United States could immediately lose recognition of their citizenship, and the status of millions of Americans could be placed into question.

Her message to the Court was direct: the Constitution, history, and long-settled law support a bright-line rule that protects birthright citizenship and prevents manipulation by changing political agendas.

This hearing shows how serious the stakes are. Birthright citizenship has long been understood as a basic constitutional protection, and today’s argument was a forceful defense of that principle.

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

The post A Strong Defense of Birthright Citizenship Before the Supreme Court appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Two Major Court Decisions Bring Hope for Immigrants in the U.S.

Martha Arias — Tue, 15 Jul 2025 20:22:31 +0000

As many of you know, this week I had the opportunity to speak on América Radio about two recent and very important court decisions affecting our immigrant community.

The first decision came from a federal judge in New Hampshire, who blocked President Trump’s executive order that would have taken away birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents. Thanks to this judge’s ruling, those children will continue to have the right to U.S. citizenship—for now, the executive order has no effect. This is a crucial reminder of the power of the courts and the importance of class action lawsuits, which can have national impact and protect entire groups.

The second big news is that the Supreme Court paused the controversial Florida law SB 4C, which would have made it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to enter Florida. I see this decision as a positive step. Turning immigration issues—traditionally handled at the federal level—into criminal matters with potential jail time raises serious constitutional and human rights concerns. For now, the law is paused, but the legal battle continues and either side may appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

We also discussed the troubling conditions reported at the so-called “Alligator Alcatraz” immigration detention center in Florida. As an attorney, I believe all detainees are entitled to basic human rights and safe, sanitary conditions, regardless of their immigration status. If you or a loved one are affected by detention or are awaiting court dates, it’s critical to consult a competent attorney, avoid any infractions, and always keep your documents with you—especially proof that you have been in the U.S. for over two years.

Stay tuned, as many immigration decisions are happening quickly and can change the lives of thousands of families. If you have questions or feel uncertain about your immigration case, don’t hesitate to contact my office at (305) 671-0018 or follow me on social media.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Orian Brito:
Hola amigos, un placer saludarles. Gracias por acompañarnos, por ser parte del canal, por seguir aquí este espacio y además lo que hacemos también en América Radio con temas de inmigración que son de gran interés para el mundo. Y me acompaña la abogada de Inmigración Martha Arias porque el gobierno sigue en este discurso contra la inmigración ilegal ejerciendo algunas acciones y mientras esto ocurre la justicia ha tomado decisiones importantes. En menos de una semana hay dos decisiones que sacuden el poder. Uno directo con el deseo de Trump de eliminar la ciudadanía por nacimiento de hijos indocumentados luego de que un juez federal bloqueara esta orden ejecutiva por considerarla inconstitucional y peligrosa. Y el otro es cortesía de la Corte Suprema que frenó el intento del gobernador de la Florida Ron DeSantis que tenía planes de convertir a Florida en un campo minado para los inmigrantes indocumentados. Como lo dije, me acompaña la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias para entender porque estos fallos son importantes, el impacto que tienen y cómo la justicia, esta lucha entre el gobierno federal y el Poder Judicial está en pleno desarrollo y les agradezco a ustedes para que sean parte de la conversación, del debate y por supuesto dejen sus ideas.

Abogada, podemos decir que los inmigrantes han ganado una con estas dos decisiones. No sé si quiere comenzar hoy con lo de la Corte Suprema. Porque había muchos desde que llegó al poder, Trump decía que quería frenar el tema de que indocumentados, hijos de indocumentados obtuvieran la ciudadanía. Afirmó una orden ejecutiva. Esto llegó a la Corte Suprema. ¿Qué implica la decisión de hoy de este juez de New Hampshire?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, la decisión implica que esos niños que nazcan en los Estados Unidos, es decir, van a estar afectados por esta obviamente esta ley del presidente Trump estos niños pueden continuar recibiendo su ciudadanía en los Estados Unidos.

La ley lo que hizo esta decisión del juez es pausar, es decir, que no se aplique una medida ejecutoria para que no se aplique la orden ejecutiva del presidente Trump que le quitaba ese derecho a los niños que nacen en los Estados Unidos de padres indocumentados.

Entonces, por ahora esa ley no tiene efecto, no se puede, o esa orden ejecutiva, más bien porque no es una ley, es una orden ejecutiva, en este momento no tiene una aplicación, no se puede aplicar.

Orian Brito:
El gobierno, sin duda, yo creo que va a apelar.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Seguramente, seguramente el gobierno va apelar, pero aquí hay algo importante, quiere decir, para que las personas que están siguiendo este tema, entiendan. No sé si se acuerdan que la semana pasada la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos emitió una decisión. Le dijo, entre otras cosas, que los jueces federales no podían emitir decisiones o estas órdenes que tuvieran efecto en todo el país o a nivel nacional. Esas órdenes solamente iban a tener efecto en el Estado, donde se hacían y para las partes demandadas.

Sin embargo, esta nueva orden de hoy, julio 10 del juez de New Hampshire, tiene un impacto en todos los Estados Unidos nuevamente. la gente debe estar haciéndose la pregunta, pero ¿por qué esta orden el juez la emite teniendo impacto para todo el país si la Corte Suprema la semana pasada dijo que los jueces no lo podían hacer?

Y la razón más importante de esta decisión es que el juez aceptó como un “class action” o certificó, es palabra correcta, como class action esta demanda que se presentó en New Hampshire. Y el class action es una demanda de grupo, una demanda donde se unen varios demandantes que pueden vivir en estados distintos y presentan esa demanda ante la corte. Ahora, en un class action pueden entrar muchas, personas, todas las personas que se crean que pueden estar afectadas por esto entran dentro de esa demanda de class action. Esa es la diferencia entre esta decisión que se emite dentro de algo que está certificado como un class action y la demás y la decisión del juez de perdón de las cortes suprema de la semana pasada.

Orian Brito:
Ok, entonces vamos a esperar por el momento este plazo de siete días, esa persona que pudieran verse afectadas por la aplicación de esta orden ejecutiva pueden respirar de momento y por supuesto ver esa batalla judicial que se mantiene no solo por este tema sino por tantos, ¿no? en las cortes.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Correcto, es una batalla judicial interesante, pero es importante por lo menos que exista esta class action, esta demanda del grupo y esta pausa. Porque cuántos niños nacen en los Estados Unidos, bueno no, no están naciendo tanto porque la gente hoy en día no quiere tener muchos hijos.

Orian Brito:
Son muchos compromisos.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Pocos que nazcan, por lo menos van a tener un alivio y tienen que estar informados esos padres para unirse a esa demanda del grupo.

Orian Brito:
Perfecto. Ahora voy con la Corte Suprema. Increíblemente, porque esa Corte Suprema ha tenido una inclinación 6 a 3 en la mayoría de las decisiones que tienen que ver con temas migratorios. Pero ha decidido por ahora un freno a la polémica ley. La ley es la SB 4C de Florida, que es una de las legislaturas más agresivas en contra de la inmigración ilegal que convertía en un crimen estatal la entrada de un inmigrante en documentado al estado de la Florida. La corte no dio muchas explicaciones, pero negó la implementación o por lo menos pausó la implementación de esta legislación. Cómo ve esta decisión abogada?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Yo esta decisión la veo con buen oso; porque cuando ya pasamos a un palano criminal o penal en el que se va a penalizar con cárcel porque sabemos que los delitos penales o los delitos criminales tienen cárcel o pueden llevar a una cárcel, cuando se va a penalizar con cárcel a personas que están indocumentadas o que entran indocumentadas al estado de la Florida después de haber entrado indocumentadas al país. Ya es una violación muy grande. No solamente es lo que aduce la parte demandante una posible violación al derecho a la Constitución porque el derecho migratorio siempre se ha considerado un tema federal, no estatal. No solamente ese es un buen argumento, sino hasta qué punto esto es un trato cruel inhumano para una violación administrativa como es entrar sin documento. Y en tercer lugar, la privación de la libertad de una persona es uno de los derechos humanos más grandes que existen.

Entonces, privar de la libertad de una persona por una violación de estas amerita una revisión muy cuidadosa de las portas. Yo pienso que esta demanda va a continuar, pero acuérdese que aunque esta decisión lo que hizo fue continuar con la pausa de la aplicación de la ley, quiere decir que esta ley por ahora la prioridad no se puede aplicar, pero la demanda continúa. Entonces, yo lo que creo que va a pasar es que cualquiera que sea la decisión a favor o en contra de la parte demandante, eh alguna de las dos partes que pierda va a poder apelar. Ajá. También si pierde la apelación van a poder ir otra vez a la corte supremo. O sea que esto, como dicen por el GIF, se extiende. Esto yo creo que va a continuar. Por ahora las personas pueden estar tranquilos.

Orian Brito:
Increíblemente, mientras hablamos de una pausa de una ley en este estado, particularmente la que estamos hablando de Florida, está la cárcel “Alligator Alcatraz”. Esta polémica cárcel que ha sido noticia esta semana lo de que varias personas que están dentro denuncian que las condiciones en las que están detenidos son condiciones infrahumanas. Hemos escuchado audios que dicen que el aire acondicionado es helado, no les dan comida, sino un sanduchito es lo que dicen, no hay medicinas, la electricidad se va, etcétera. La alcaldesa del condado pidió a las autoridades estatales, porque esta cárcel tiene, este centro de detención migratorio tiene el control, el estado de la Florida pidió que se le permitiera el acceso para que ella pueda constatar la situación. Se le negó esta posibilidad. Pero curiosamente hoy tenemos información de que hay abogados que denuncian que no han tenido acceso a sus clientes que están allí. Cuando hablamos de derechos humanos, porque cuando yo leo los comentarios aquí en el canal y la gente cuando hemos compartido en la radio, al final todo el mundo está de acuerdo con que se ponga orden a la inmigración. y que cualquier inmigrante que comete un delito pague por ello. Eso no es el tema en discusión, pero las condiciones también es un factor importante porque no por cometer un delito eso, o sea, tú puedes ser víctima de otro, tú pierdes derechos, ¿Cómo ve esta situación que se está dando con esta cárcel que a muchos los tiene preocupado no solo en el estado sino a nivel nacional?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, efectivamente, ver, sí veo con preocupación porque como como abogada que soy, uno jura que cumplir la ley y la constitución de los Estados Unidos. Y una, y la ley incluye muchas cosas, incluye leyes administrativas. Mientras una persona está bajo la detención o la custodia del Estado o federal o del gobierno federal, persona tiene que tener unas garantías de que su vida está protegida, de que ciertas cosas. No es que le vamos a dar un hotel de cinco o diez estrellas, obviamente que no.

Orian Brito:
Exactamente.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Tampoco es, pero tampoco vamos a ir a los dos extremos. No ni es un hotel de cinco o diez estrellas, pero tampoco pueden ser unas condiciones que puedan crear, por ejemplo, enfermedad o la posibilidad de muerte, o la inhabilidad de una asistencia o una defensa para ellos. Entonces, sí, esa es preocupante. Lo que he escuchado, gracias a Dios, yo no tengo ninguna persona atendida ya, pero lo que he escuchado es que Esto está en este momento en revisión porque las personas argumentan que no tienen agua, que no se puede lavar sus dientes, que las luces están prendidas todo el tiempo, de día y de noche, que los mosquitos son… la situación con los mosquitos es bien fuerte. Eso es que he leído y reporta muchas personas. Entonces, pues yo no sé, Orián, Qué futuro va a esta este centro de detención. Lo que usted dijo es cierto, aparentemente la alcaldesa trató de entrar y no ha podido. Entonces, bueno, vamos a esperar a ver cómo se desarrolle esto, lo que uno más quiere en este momento es que ninguno de sus clientes, los clientes de nosotros, ninguna persona vaya a ser detenida ya.

Orian Brito:
Cuando un cliente se derretió, disculpa que le interrumpe a abogada, ¿cómo se lucha por esa defensa? Cuando usted tiene un cliente que está bajo el poder de ICE y no le permiten. Oye, es un proceso, Si es difícil en una cárcel cercana a la que usted tenga acceso, imagínese en “Alligator Alcatraz”, que hay que manejar como una hora el acceso, por supuesto, mucho más restringido.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Hasta donde tengo entendido por ahora, no hay acceso físico a llegar allí por parte de su abogado. Lo que creo que se está hablando era de un acceso telefónico, pero por ahora tampoco sé en ese momento si el acceso físico también se está programando o sea posible más adelante pero es complicado, es complicado y yo creo que vamos a estar escuchando de este centro de atención por los próximos meses para ver cada vez o cómo lo mejora o cómo solucionan el problema grave sobre todo de agua, de higiene porque ok, Si una persona no tiene agua por tres días pero el agua viene, pues ok, ¿cuánto tiempo van a estar sin agua? ¿Cuánto tiempo van a estar sin poder hacer una higiene personal? ¿Puede llegar un momento de alergias o de contaminación?

Orian Brito:
Claro, claro. Es importante en este momento ver qué acciones se van a tomar. Tengo entendido que algunos legisladores van a tratar de visitarlo en los próximos días. vamos a seguir muy atentos a lo que pase allí dentro. Quiero ir cerrando con esto porque muchas de las personas que me escriben me dicen, bueno, entraron de manera irregular por la frontera, están solicitando asilo, pero viendo todas estas redadas, toda esta política que se está llevando contra la inmigración ilegal, sienten temor de salir a sus calles, de desplazarse, sea, dicen que van puntualmente a sus trabajos y regresan porque si bien, repito, tienen un permiso de trabajo mientras solicitan el asilo, pues no se sienten seguros del todo. ¿Qué se le puede recomendar? a ellos en este momento una situación tan compleja como se está viviendo.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Pero dice usted, los que están detenidos allí en Alcatraz o…

Orian Brito:
No, no, esas personas que ingresaron de manera irregular, que están esperando por una cita en corte para ya sea defender un asilo o porque deben presentarse ante una oficina de ICE y sienten temor de estar tranquilos en la calle, por supuesto, por todo lo que está pasando.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, es una situación bastante delicada. Yo lo que les digo a las personas consulten con su abogado, una persona competente que les pueda dar un consejo legal competente y ayudar a tomar las medidas legales que sean posibles para presentar sus casos, que sean casos que puedan defender y tengan las evidencias.

Cuidarse de no cometer infracciones, delitos, no tomar. Por ejemplo, la semana pasada me encuentro un señor que estaba aquí totalmente igual, no es legal, estaba en un proceso de corte, se borrachó, estaba conduciendo, lo detuvieron. Entonces, en un estado, en una situación frágil migratoria, vamos a llamarlo así, la persona lo menos que debe hacer es nunca la veras, nunca veras ocuparse en una situación de este.

Orian Brito:
Es importante eso y siempre cargar sus documentos, ¿no?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Claro. Algasos, documentos de identidad, incluso una copia del pasaporte y de la fecha de entrada al país. Es importante que puedan mostrar que llevan más de dos años en los Estados Unidos. Eso es bien importante.

Orian Brito:
¿Por qué? ¿Si tienes menos, tienes más riesgo?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Si tienen menos de dos años, los pueden poner en el proceso de expedited removal o deportación expedita, que es lo que el gobierno anunció y está haciendo. El expedited removal es que administrativamente hay que puede deportar a esas personas sin derecho a ver a un polis.

Orian Brito:
Increíble. Abogada Martha Arias, gracias por el tiempo que nos ha dedicado, pero no quisiera despedirme sin que ofrezca su número de contacto porque cualquier persona que pueda ver este video y que tenga incertidumbre, dudas con su proceso migratorio, en este momento el tiempo apremia, entonces puede llamarla.

Además tiene un espacio de radio aquí en la ciudad de Miami lo puede compartir donde la pueden escuchar. A veces comparte conmigo también en las mañanas en América Radio donde pueden seguirla para que cualquier persona en este momento no dude en contactarla.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, cómo no. El teléfono de mi oficina es 305-671-0018. Repito 305-671-0018. Mi página web es ariasvilla.com, ariasvilla.com es el nombre de la oficina de abogados. Pero también en Instagram estamos como @marta_arias98. Ese es el Instagram de nosotros, marta_arias98. Marta lo escribió con H. Interven.

Orian Brito:
Con H, sí. Ahí como lo están viendo está escrito en este momento. Yo la voy a empezar a seguir en un rato cuando termine en Instagram y le agradezco el tiempo porque sé que está bastante complicado. dado como cuatro entrevistas y conmigo pues se dio este tiempo para poner en contexto estas noticias y le agradezco su disposición y su buena energía porque siempre está muy prestes a conversar con la prensa.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Siempre, siempre estoy dispuesta a dar toda la información porque es lo primero que reviso en la mañana y en las noches. que hay que revisarla antes de.

Orian Brito:
Así es. Y después nos llamamos nosotros, voy a contar esta intimidad, nos llamamos y ¿qué le parece esto? Y discutimos las decisiones que se toman para posteriormente discutirlas, ¿no? Al aire.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Y se tienen que dar cuenta que en esta administración muchas decisiones salen de la Corte Suprema están saliendo de la a los viernes como a final del día. La Corte Suprema la semana pasada la decisión fue el viernes lo del PAL, la terminación del Pallón de Nicaragua. Y el 12 que es este sábado sería la fecha límite para que el gobierno se pronuncie acerca de si termina o no termina el TPS de Venezuela del 2021. El viernes es sábado, quién sabe si la decisión salga, digo el 12 es sábado, entonces quién sabe si esa decisión salga el viernes antes del 12, sería el sábado. Así que este viernes mañana estemos muy atentos.

Orian Brito:
Vamos a estar muy atentos y vamos a estar en contacto con toda la comunidad venezolana.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Exacto porque lo que la ley dice es que tienen hasta julio 12 el gobierno para decir si lo extiende o lo termina. Si no dice nada es una extensión automática de seis meses. Ya por eso esa fecha del 12 de julio es crucial pero como el 12 es día de fiesta yo presumo que mañana viernes 11 o el viernes 11 de julio salga algo para el TPS de Venezuela 2020.

Orian Brito:
No, soy muy optimista, debo decir, porque con las decisiones que se han tomado con otros países y ya con el otro TPS para los venezolanos, pues ojalá me equivoquen, pero ese es mi sentir. Usted?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Yo pienso que también, yo pienso lo mismo, yo pienso que pronto no lo existan, pero sí tengo fe que el proyecto que presentó María Elvira Salazar con dos congresistas demócratas de aquí, de la Florida, para extender el TPS a los venezolanos y unirlos todos, lo que se llamaría el TPS el 2025. Tengo fe que lo aprueban en el Congreso. Eso está pendiente ya, es un proyecto de ley. Lo presentó un bipartidista. Entonces yo digo, bueno, si lo quitan mañana, pero nos aprueban el 2025 para Venezuela, sería una…

Orian Brito:
Puede haber una decisión positiva para tanta gente. Vamos a seguir en contacto. Usted pendiente. Ahí ya, ya le dejamos la pista de lo que viene y cualquier cosa que burra nos volvemos a conectar. Le agradezco a la gente sus comentarios, que se comuniquen con la abogada. Descanse porque sé que vienen días mucho más fuertes de lo que ya estamos viviendo y a ustedes por su atención. Muchísimas gracias. Hasta pronto.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Orian Brito:
Hello friends, a pleasure to greet you. Thank you for joining us, for being part of the channel, for staying here in this space, and also for what we do here on América Radio with immigration topics that are of great interest to the world. And I am joined by immigration attorney Martha Arias because the government continues with this discourse against illegal immigration, carrying out some actions, and while this is happening, the judiciary has made important decisions. In less than a week there are two decisions that shake those in power. One directly regarding Trump’s desire to eliminate birthright citizenship for children of undocumented people, after a federal judge blocked this executive order for being considered unconstitutional and dangerous. And the other, courtesy of the Supreme Court, which stopped the attempt by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who had plans to turn Florida into a minefield for undocumented immigrants. As I said, I am joined by immigration attorney Martha Arias to understand why these rulings are important, the impact they have, and how the judiciary, this struggle between the federal government and the judiciary, is in full development. And I thank you for being part of the conversation, of the debate, and of course, for leaving your thoughts.

Attorney, can we say that immigrants have won one with these two decisions? I don’t know if you want to start today with the Supreme Court issue. Because there were many, since Trump came to power, who said he wanted to stop the matter of undocumented people, children of undocumented people obtaining citizenship. He signed an executive order. This reached the Supreme Court. What does today’s decision from this judge in New Hampshire mean?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, the decision means that those children who are born in the United States, that is, are going to be affected by, obviously, this law from President Trump, these children can continue receiving their citizenship in the United States.

What this judge’s decision did is pause, that is, that no enforcement measure will be applied so that President Trump’s executive order, which took away that right from children born in the United States to undocumented parents, is not applied.

So, for now, that law has no effect, it cannot— or rather, that executive order, because it’s not a law, it’s an executive order, at this moment it does not have any application, it cannot be applied.

Orian Brito:
The government, undoubtedly, I believe is going to appeal.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Surely, surely the government is going to appeal, but here there is something important, that is, for people who are following this issue to understand. I don’t know if you remember that last week the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision. It said, among other things, that federal judges could not issue decisions or these orders that would have effect throughout the country or at a national level. Those orders were only going to have effect in the state where they were made and for the parties sued.

However, this new order today, July 10, from the judge in New Hampshire, has an impact throughout the United States again. People must be asking themselves, but why does this judge issue an order having an impact on the whole country if the Supreme Court last week said that judges could not do that?
And the most important reason for this decision is that the judge accepted it as a “class action” or certified— that’s the correct word— certified as a class action this lawsuit that was filed in New Hampshire. And the class action is a group lawsuit, a lawsuit where several plaintiffs who can live in different states join together and file that lawsuit before the court. Now, in a class action, many people can join, all the people who believe they may be affected by this enter within that class action lawsuit. That is the difference between this decision that is issued within something that is certified as a class action and the decision from, sorry, from the Supreme Court last week.

Orian Brito:
Ok, so for now we are going to wait during this seven-day period, those people who could be affected by the application of this executive order can breathe for the moment and of course see this legal battle that continues, not only for this matter but for so many others, right? in the courts.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correct, it is an interesting legal battle, but it is important at least that this class action exists, this group lawsuit and this pause. Because how many children are born in the United States— well, no, not so many are being born because people nowadays don’t want to have many children.

Orian Brito:
There are many commitments.

Attorney Martha Arias:
The few who are born, at least are going to have relief and those parents have to be informed to join that group lawsuit.

Orian Brito:
Perfect. Now I’ll go to the Supreme Court. Incredibly, because that Supreme Court has had a 6 to 3 inclination in most decisions that have to do with immigration issues. But for now, it has decided to halt the controversial law. The law is SB 4C of Florida, which is one of the most aggressive legislatures against illegal immigration that made it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to enter the state of Florida. The court did not give many explanations, but it denied the implementation or at least paused the implementation of this legislation. How do you see this decision, attorney?

Attorney Martha Arias:
I see this decision positively; because when we move to a criminal or penal plane, in which it is going to be penalized with jail— because we know that criminal offenses or criminal acts have jail or can lead to jail— when you are going to penalize with jail people who are undocumented or who enter undocumented into the state of Florida after having entered undocumented into the country, that is already a very serious violation. Not only is it, what the plaintiff alleges, a possible violation of the right to the Constitution, because immigration law has always been considered a federal matter, not a state one. Not only is that a good argument, but also to what extent is this a cruel and inhuman treatment for an administrative violation such as entering without documents. And thirdly, the deprivation of liberty of a person is one of the greatest human rights that exist.

So, depriving a person of their liberty for a violation like these deserves a very careful review by the courts. I think this lawsuit will continue, but remember that even though this decision simply continued the pause of the application of the law, it means that this law for now cannot be applied, but the lawsuit continues. So, what I think will happen is that whichever the decision, in favor or against the plaintiff, one of the two parties that loses will be able to appeal. Uh-huh. Also, if they lose the appeal, they will be able to go again to the Supreme Court. So, as they say in GIFs, this will go on. I think this is going to continue. For now, people can be calm.

Orian Brito:
Incredibly, while we talk about a pause of a law in this state, particularly the one we are talking about in Florida, there is the “Alligator Alcatraz” jail. This controversial jail that has been in the news this week because several people inside report that the conditions in which they are detained are inhumane. We have heard audios that say the air conditioning is freezing, they are not given food, only a little sandwich is what they say, there are no medicines, the electricity goes out, etc. The county mayor asked the state authorities, because this jail has— this immigration detention center has control— the state of Florida asked to be allowed access so she could verify the situation. She was denied this possibility. But curiously, today we have information that there are lawyers who report they have not had access to their clients who are there. When we talk about human rights, because when I read the comments here on the channel and people when we have shared on the radio, in the end everyone agrees that order must be brought to immigration and that any immigrant who commits a crime must pay for it. That is not the issue being discussed, but conditions are also an important factor, because not for committing a crime, that is, you can be a victim of something else, you do not lose rights. How do you see this situation that is happening with this jail that has many people worried not only in the state but nationwide?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, indeed, yes I see it with concern because as an attorney that I am, one swears to uphold the law and the Constitution of the United States. And one— and the law includes many things, it includes administrative laws. While a person is under the detention or custody of the state or federal or the federal government, the person has to have guarantees that their life is protected, that certain things— It’s not that we’re going to give them a five- or ten-star hotel, obviously not.

Orian Brito:
Exactly.

Attorney Martha Arias:
But we’re not going to go to either extreme. No, it’s not a five- or ten-star hotel, but neither can there be conditions that can create, for example, illness or the possibility of death, or the inability of assistance or a defense for them. So yes, that is concerning. What I have heard, thank God, I do not have anyone attended there, but what I have heard is that this is currently under review because people argue they do not have water, that they cannot brush their teeth, that the lights are on all the time, day and night, that mosquitoes are— the situation with mosquitoes is very bad. That is what I have read and many people report. So, well, I don’t know, Orián, what future this detention center will have. What you said is true, apparently the mayor tried to enter and has not been able. So, well, let’s wait and see how this develops, what one most wants right now is that none of your clients, our clients, no one, ends up detained there.

Orian Brito:
When a client is detained, sorry to interrupt, attorney, how do you fight for that defense? When you have a client who is under ICE control and they don’t allow you— Hey, it’s a process. If it’s hard in a nearby jail you have access to, imagine in “Alligator Alcatraz,” which is an hour’s drive, access is of course much more restricted.

Attorney Martha Arias:
As far as I understand for now, there is no physical access to get there on the part of the attorney. What I think is being discussed is telephone access, but for now I also don’t know at this moment if physical access is being scheduled or will be possible later, but it’s complicated, it’s complicated, and I believe we are going to be hearing about this detention center for the next few months to see how, or if, they improve it or solve the serious problem, above all of water, hygiene, because ok, if a person doesn’t have water for three days but water comes, ok, how long are they going to be without water? How long without being able to do personal hygiene? Could there come a time for allergies or contamination?

Orian Brito:
Of course, of course. It is important right now to see what actions will be taken. I understand that some legislators are going to try to visit it in the coming days. We are going to stay very attentive to what happens there inside. I want to close with this because many people who write to me say, well, they entered irregularly through the border, they are seeking asylum, but seeing all these raids, all this policy being carried out against illegal immigration, they feel fear of going out in the streets, moving around, that is, they say they go strictly to work and come back because, although, I repeat, they have a work permit while they are applying for asylum, they do not feel completely safe. What can be recommended to them at this time in such a complex situation as we are experiencing?

Attorney Martha Arias:
But do you mean those who are detained there in Alcatraz or…

Orian Brito:
No, no, those people who entered irregularly, who are waiting for a court date either to defend an asylum or because they must appear before an ICE office and feel afraid of being calm in the street, of course, because of everything that is happening.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, it is a very delicate situation. What I tell people is to consult with their attorney, someone competent who can give them competent legal advice and help to take whatever legal measures are possible to present their cases, cases that they can defend and have evidence for.

Be careful not to commit infractions, crimes, not to— For example, last week I met a gentleman who was here totally the same, not legal, he was in a court process, got drunk, was driving, he was arrested. So, in a state, in a fragile immigration situation, let’s call it that, the least a person should do is—never, you will never see yourself in a situation like that.

Orian Brito:
That’s important and always carry your documents, right?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Of course. At least, identity documents, even a copy of the passport and the date of entry to the country. It is important that they can show that they have been in the United States for more than two years. That is very important.

Orian Brito:
Why? If you have less, are you at more risk?

Attorney Martha Arias:
If they have less than two years, they can put them in the expedited removal process, or expedited deportation, which is what the government announced and is doing.

Expedited removal is that administratively they can deport those people without the right to see a judge.

Orian Brito:
Incredible. Attorney Martarias, thank you for the time you have given us, but I would not want to say goodbye without having you give your contact number, because anyone who may see this video and has uncertainty, doubts with their immigration process, at this moment time is of the essence, so they can call you.

You also have a radio space here in the city of Miami, you can share where they can listen to you. Sometimes you also share with me in the mornings on América Radio where they can follow you so that anyone at this moment does not hesitate to contact you.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, of course. My office phone number is 305-671-0018. I repeat, 305-671-0018. My website is ariasvilla.com, ariasvilla.com is the name of the law office. But also on Instagram we are as @marta_arias98. That is our Instagram, marta_arias98. Marta is written with an H. I insist.

Orian Brito:
With an H, yes. As you can see it is written right now. I will start following you in a bit when I finish on Instagram and I thank you for your time because I know it’s quite complicated. You’ve given like four interviews and with me you took this time to put these news items in context and I appreciate your willingness and your good energy because you are always very willing to talk to the press.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Always, always I am willing to give all the information because it is the first thing I check in the morning and at night, you have to check it before…

Orian Brito:
That’s right. And afterwards we call each other, I will share this little intimacy, we call each other and “what do you think of this?” and we discuss the decisions that are made and then we discuss them on the air.

Attorney Martha Arias:
And you have to realize that in this administration, many decisions come out of the Supreme Court, they are coming out on Fridays like at the end of the day. The Supreme Court last week, the decision was Friday, the thing with PAL, the termination of Parole for Nicaragua. And the 12th, which is this Saturday, would be the deadline for the government to announce whether or not it ends the TPS for Venezuela from 2021. Friday is Saturday, who knows if the decision will come out, I say the 12th is Saturday, so who knows if that decision will come out on Friday before the 12th, it would be Saturday. So this Friday, tomorrow let’s be very attentive.

Orian Brito:
We are going to be very attentive and we are going to stay in touch with the entire Venezuelan community.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactly, because what the law says is that the government has until July 12 to say whether it extends it or ends it. If it says nothing, it is an automatic extension of six months. That’s why that date of July 12 is crucial, but since the 12th is a holiday, I presume that tomorrow, Friday the 11th, or Friday, July 11th, something will come out for the TPS of Venezuela 2020.

Orian Brito:
No, I’m very optimistic, I must say, because with the decisions that have been made with other countries and already with the other TPS for Venezuelans, well hopefully I’m wrong, but that is my feeling. And you?

Attorney Martha Arias:
I think so too, I think the same, I think soon they won’t extend it, but I do have faith that the project presented by María Elvira Salazar with two Democratic congress members from here, from Florida, to extend TPS for Venezuelans and unite them all, what would be called the TPS 2025. I have faith that it will be approved in Congress. That is already pending, it is a bill. It was introduced as a bipartisan bill. So I say, well, if they take it away tomorrow but approve 2025 for Venezuela, it would be a…

Orian Brito:
There could be a positive decision for so many people. We are going to stay in touch. You stay tuned. There you have the tip of what’s coming and whatever happens we’ll reconnect. I thank everyone for your comments, for getting in touch with the attorney. Rest, because I know much stronger days are coming than what we are already experiencing, and to you for your attention. Thank you very much. See you soon.

The post Two Major Court Decisions Bring Hope for Immigrants in the U.S. appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..