Skip to comments.Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship
Posted on 10/30/2018 2:48:25 AM PDT by be-baw
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.
Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trumps power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.
Trump told Axios that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.
"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order. When told says that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." "It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
The president expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "
Behind the scenes:
Swan had been working for weeks on a story on Trumps plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsels office. The story wasnt ready for prime time, but Swan figured he'd spring the question on Trump in the interview.
The legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment, which 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."
Be smart: Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president's power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.
But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas. John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told Axios that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. green card holders and citizens.
Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.
Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (Its not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests theres a good chance.) But others such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."
Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.
Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.
The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said.
The full interview will air on "Axios on HBO" this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.
As someone who was involved in issuing visas and passports for 28 years, I understand the process both professionally and personally. You need to get better informed on the issue.
I have been working on immigration issues for over ten years as part of a grassroots immigration group that lobbies on the Hill. We have supported ending birthright citizenship and various bill authored by Steve King and others. Birthright citizenship is still the law of the land. It must be changed.
Ive never entered Germany legally as a visitor or refugee - do I currently have all the benefits of German citizenship? Would I if I snuck into the country and started living under a bridge?
“Birthright citizenship is still the law of the land”
LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE !!!!
Thank you President TRUMP !!!!!
As explained to me and frequently brought up here, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, ONLY applies to foreign diplomats. Diplomats have immunity to our laws, every other living creature is subject to our law, can be arrested, tried and jailed or sent back to where they came from.
This seems to make sense to me.
“Sure would be nice to have this mess cleared up once and for all. i.e., is Ted Cruz eligible to become President? Are my daughters?”
It is clear. No and no.
Natural born Citizen—born to U.S. citizen parent(S) on U.S. soil.
Is a visitor to the USA “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA?
I love this guy!
A ton of benefits to being EU citizens but only if the EU citizen lives in Europe and likes to travel freely between member states. - I think thats about it. LOL
This law has been the basis for the issuance of passports as well as granting benefits and entitlements to anyone born on USA soil. You may claim that this was never the intent of the 14th Amendment, but the fact remains that until the law is changed, we will continue to grant citizenship based on jus solis. The Courts will eventually make that determination. Trump's possible Executive Order will force the Courts to make that determination. Depending on the outcome, we will learn whether a Constitutional amendment is needed or not. Or will an EO or law passed by Congress be sufficient.
The Wall, if built, had them scared.
You see if you cannot get to US territory you cannot have an anchor baby.
BUT, they were already cooking up a scheme...since the wall cannot be placed EXACTLY on top of the border since it would exist in both Mexico and the US they were drawing up plans to put tiny,narrow birth clinics against the wall to claim the baby WAS born on US soil.
Is there no indignity we will not be forced to suffer!?
The 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, means a person has to have a true and faithful allegiance to the US, and only the US. In other words a citizen.
Therefore, if an illegal(non-citizen) comes here and has a baby, the baby does not become a US citizen, but a citizen of the Mother’s home country, since the parent is still “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of their home country, and not of the United States.
Needs to be done, but there will be a lawsuit within seconds.
>>>They are entitled to all the benefits of citizenship, including US passports. This has been the practice for over 100 years.<<<<
Not really, paraphrased and quoted from RedMen:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the only scotus case that has been deemed applicable. Ark was born to legal permanent residents in the USA. The Court ruled that birthright citizenship extended to all persons born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of their parents excepting children born of diplomats and children of aliens born in territories occupied by foreign armies.
“The decision is silent with respect to children born to aliens here on temporary visa and to aliens who are here illegally. Indeed, while the decision can be viewed as covering everybody born here except for two exceptions, it is clear that it is assumed that the person born here is body politic of the country, subject to the same rights and responsibilities of citizens, being protected by and owing allegiance to the state. Children of parents who are here illegally or who are here only for the short time that their parents are here, cannot be presumed to be part of the body politic.”
“It wasnt until the 1960s that illegal immigration and anchor babies became an issue in this country.... This is truly a novel issue and it would be good for the Supreme Court to have an actual case so the controversy can be resolved.”
I hope he does it. The court should be forced to decide what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Illegals would not purchase fake documents if they thought they were subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Here’s my President. If he accomplishes this it will be the single greatest accomplishment of his Presidency.
You’re still not getting it at all. There is no law granting citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. Nor to legal foreign nationals for that matter.
I don’t care if there’s been a ‘consensus’ of what the law may mean. Some subjective interpretation. It doesn’t work that way and it never should. This sh!t was conjured out of thin air.
It’s been a complete lawless free for all for 30 some odd years. Someone needs to go to prison for this. Better yet, someone needs to hang from a lamppost.
“If you truly want to understand birthright citizenship”
I obviously understand it a lot better than you do. You’ve had these same moronic talking points for years
will this be like football rules - did they break the plane? one toe or bit of body over the line?
I dont think it would stick. That said, I hope it causes a stutter step for those who are headed north. Maybe that was part of the plan?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.