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 Trump’s 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 Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office. The story wasn’t 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. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s 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.
Many service members and other conservatives share your situation—many who have friends, relatives and neighbors who sympathize. No reason to fear, though. Some tool just handed our President a bad propaganda canister round, and it splattered all over the place.
NBC’s Todd: Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Is a ‘Ruse,’ ‘Throwing Mud at the Wall’
https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/10/30/nbcs-todd-trumps-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-is-a-ruse-throwing-mud-at-the-wall/
Lindsey “The Daisy” Graham is using the messed up load, too, making it all the more obvious.
The Constitution expressly forbids the making of ex post facto laws. That’s why not. You can change the law going forward but never backward.
There is NO LAW granting children born to illegal aliens birth right citizenship. Read the thread
“Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Good stuff. Thanks for posting that.
Attention: Paul ‘the POS rino’ Ryan
Senator Jacob Howard (served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the 14th) clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
That’s interesting to people who understand English. “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...” It refers to family members of diplomats, who have some immunities and are not subject to our laws.
“The understanding of Sen. Howard is not determinative of the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, but lets assume it is.”
No, why should it be just because he wrote it and explained in detail what he meant /bonghit
This will be overturned immediately... 14th Amendment is pretty clear on this...he must have an angle to it?
“Have you been paying attention for the last 50 years or 60 million abortions? Legitimately or defacto its certainly seems as though they are as a practical matter.”
That’s the problem isn’t it. The executive and legislative branches ceding their powers to the courts. The reason why America is so FUBARed.
Amen to that - I'm hoping that warning from Justice Thomas turns into some sort of real judicial reform. It probably won't because outside of president Trump the elected officials are to worried about taking firm stances on things that might lead to them being former congressmen/women. So they off load their responsibility to the courts which seem only to happy to oblige them.
I’m curious, when did congress write, pass and send that “law” 1401 to a president for signing.
There is a difference between law and regulation. What is the underlying legislation for this code?
If he was Emperor Howard, you’d be right. But he wasn’t. At the very debate from which that quote is lifted, other Senators had a different view of what the language meant. One, John Conness of California, thought it clearly meant that the children of Chinese immigrants born in the US would be US Citizens, and his vote counted just as much as Howard’s.
I don’t see how a statement from 1862 of what a “natural born citizen” is has anything to do with the meaning of the 14th Amendment, which was proposed 6 years later and which does not contain the phrase “natural born citizen.”
As an originalist, I think a Constitutional provision (or any other statute, for that matter), should be interpreted in accordance with the original public meaning of the plain language of the document, not at the political ideals of its authors.
True, but that won’t stop the courts from declaring a law nullifying citizenship from persons who were mistakenly granted it under the current misinterpretation as being ex post facto and therefore void.
I haven't heard anything making it retroactive. The simplest thing for Trump to do is change the policy going forward to disallow birthright citizenship by birth tourism and by illegal aliens. That alone would make a lot of people happy and all he would be doing is reversing an executive policy, not a law and not any interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..." Children born to illegals or tourists do not qualify as subjects of American law. Therefore they do not get citizenship.
You're right. This issue, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, has been in the courts as far back as the late 19th century, but never made it to the Supreme Court. As President, can he instruct ??? , State I think, not to authorize the issuance of social security numbers at birth to the children of non citizens. Sure, perfectly reasonable. But it will hit the courts, there will be a restraining order, and it will be years before it gets to the SC. I like President Trumps policies, but don't fool myself that he's the beginning of a century of Republican Presidents. Not sure that would be healthy. Even so, would a President Jeb overturn that order? Legislation is the proper, more permanent way, to enact a change like this. I acknowledge I'm not a huge fan of executive orders which impinge on what should be the power of Congress.
Exactly. And if it meant what the left said, why were individuals born to native parents, even off reservation, not citizens. Till Congress legislated in the 1920s.
That's why legislation is preferable to an order. Personally, a non legal professional in any sense, I look to the situation of natives after the amendments passage. Born here, on or off the reservation, not citizens. Until Congress acted. This tells me jurisdiction thereof refers to citizenship in a foreign nation/jurisdiction. The fact than employees of foreign nations children born here don't become citizens tells me the same thing. As much as I like discussing things like ex parte Crow Dog, which lead to the major crimes act of 1885 relative to the jurisdiction issue of sovereign tribes, the relationship to citizenship issues is beyond me. But from my common sense perspective the fact that Congress had to act in 1885 to claim criminal jurisdiction over those not subject to our nations jurisdiction, and had to act again in the 1920s to allow citizenship to those same individuals born in the US but not under our jurisdiction, tells me this is within the purvue of Contress, not a 14th amendment issue. None of which matters, the Supreme Court will end up deciding this one.
Embassy employees are here legally with the approval of our Government too. As are military here for training. I don't think any of this is clear, an excellent reason for legislation. I would agree that green card holders, their children should be eligible for citizenship with certain conditions. Like their parents become citizens, or they meet the requirements a green card holder would to apply for citizenship. Not automatically at birth.
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.