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.
LoVe this man. Mr. President rocks.
BEST ELECTION EVER!
Also the Supreme Court in the Ark decision.
One word liberals- Kavanah.
See 164. This will not include foreigners, aliens...
You can stomp your feet and get red in the face. That doesnt change reality. People are acquiring citizenship every day thru this law. The numbers are in the millions in terms of the children of illegal aliens and birth tourism.
When you say that there is no law granting birthright citizenship, you are flat out wrong. That will become more apparent as the legal battle is fought out. Trumps EO will be immediately challenged in the courts with some sort of injunction coming from a resistance judge. The initial discussion will deal with the Presidents authority to issue the EO vice Congress. Then it may move as to whether Congress can pass a law ending birthright citizenship or must it be done thru a Constitutional amendment. The battle has just been joined.
The President knows this move will be highly controversial and will wind up in the courts. He clearly wants to force Congress and the courts to resolve the constitional question. It’s a very smart and brave step by the President.
“The numbers are in the millions in terms of the children of illegal aliens and birth tourism.”
No sh!t. That’s why it’s such a travesty.
“When you say that there is no law granting birthright citizenship, you are flat out wrong. “
Yeah, stick your fingers in your ears and keep telling yourself that. Your insistence that the courts will get involved and ‘solve’ things is very peculiar. You do realize they’re the weakest branch. The unelected branch. That they’re not the final arbiters on what is constitutional....
I’m still looking for the passage in the constitution that states “ illegals can squeeze out a kid and get free stuff”
Perfect. May I steal that?
“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
All person 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.”
169 U.S. 649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18)
Argued: March 5, 8, 1897
Decided: March 28, 1898
Whether you or I like it or not, millions of anchors rely on this SCOTUS decision and the 14th Amendment. I most certainly don’t like it and it must change, but here we are. Thank God we have a president that will take up this flaw in common sense.
If Obama could extend amnesty through EO, if our immigration law could be circumvented for eight years by EO, why the hell would Trump NOT do this. Get enough real (as in; NOT Roberts) justices on the bench and we CAN MAGA!
Wong got it WRONG. Besides, the courts don’t have the power of naturalization only congress does.
It’s an interesting question to say the least, but I’m not entirely sure. Say a kid was born 10 years ago, what has the federal government done to make his citizenship official? A Social Security number? Citizenship is not required to attend school. Welfare for his mother? I dunno. But it also raises the question of how this would be implemented. If a U.S. birth certificate is not evidence of citizenship, what would be? National ID?
this is one big troll to force demacrat candidates to state there real position on illegal immigration. my guess is that if it goes to the supream court the way it is at the moment they will say that the document does not take a position and the supream court will not take a position allowing trump tp end birth right citizenship at least till congress acts, there is amendment or a the Presidential decree is rescinded by Trump or another President.
Great, informative comment!
Based on the lines I see at our post office, a lot of the anchor babies have passports.
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.