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.
You caught me. I’ve hung around Free Republic for 12 years just waiting for the opportunity to argue with you about the meaning of the citizenship clause.
Your arguments are eerily similar to the Obots defending the ‘eligibility’ of the marxist muslim America hating faggot illegal alien known as Barack Hussein Osama.
IOW, you’re full of it.
Which makes Marco Rubio a born US Citizen, not a natural born Citizen as his parent were merely permanent residents and not yet naturalized US Citizens.
1 (a). Their ruling applied only to lawful residents. It did not, of course, apply to those here illegally. It also did not apply to those not permanently domiciled here. Which would of course rule out situations like "birth tourism."
(b)Which then means, any ambassador or other gov't official who is a lawful permanent resident (one who isn't a citizen, but also not here temporarily) can then have a child born here become a citizen. This, of course, would be absurd, but could be argued using the WKA decision.
2. This overreaching case can be overturned...just like the Dread Scott decision was (& others). Once a case goes to this supreme court, they only need to look to what the framers of the amendment stated. Their own words are plain as day as to what they meant and what the 14th Amendment was intended for.
"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."
Plain as day.
***
@ 405, rxsid wrote:
The WKA decision is addressed in two ways:
1 (a). Their ruling applied only to lawful residents. It did not, of course, apply to those here illegally. It also did not apply to those not permanently domiciled here. Which would of course rule out situations like “birth tourism.”
(b)Which then means, any ambassador or other gov’t official who is a lawful permanent resident (one who isn’t a citizen, but also not here temporarily) can then have a child born here become a citizen. This, of course, would be absurd, but could be argued using the WKA decision.
2. This overreaching case can be overturned...just like the Dread Scott decision was (& others). Once a case goes to this supreme court, they only need to look to what the framers of the amendment stated. Their own words are plain as day as to what they meant and what the 14th Amendment was intended for.
“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.”
Plain as day.
.................................................................................................
The WKA decision is now brought up out of context to the current issue, as WKA’s parents were legal immigrants.
The issue for WKA is he went out of the country on business and stayed away for many years and came back. His citizenship was questioned when he returned.
***
Back to the thread.
Check out Hostage’s reply to rxsid at # 407.
Thanks. Hostage.
“This overreaching case can be overturned...”
Or better yet ignored. Since it’s unconstitutional. Since the court doesn’t make law, can’t change the Constitution, nor can they make anyone a citizen. They offer an opinion and in this case it’s a sh!tty opinion.
Thanks for the ping!
It is not out of context, it is clearly relevant to the question of Citizenship of a person born jus soli related to the parents legal status. The title of this thread is Birthright Citizenship
The issue for WKA is he went out of the country on business and stayed away for many years and came back. His citizenship was questioned when he returned.
He was profiled when he returned and the collector of customs impression of his Citizenship was questioned.
And Rxsid is correct when he states the decision is far reaching. There is virtually no reference to the debate of the 14th wereas in opinion Justice Gray writes:
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.And then goes on to write:
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the ConstitutionHe used that as an excuse to quote about 100 English case law.. which Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan wrote:
Nevertheless, Congress has persisted from 1795 in rejecting the English rule and in requiring the alien who would become a citizen of the United States, in taking on himself the ties binding him to our Government, to affirmatively sever the ties that bound him to any other.
Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.And not only was it not intended to include persons born of aliens it did not include native Indians who were born here. Indians didn't gain Citizenship until 1924!
Well, it's not likely to be a "full interview". Let's remember who Axios is and what their political agenda has always been.
Which makes Marco Rubio a born US Citizen, not a natural born Citizen as his parent were merely permanent residents and not yet naturalized US Citizens.
Agreed,...
You’re welcome!
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.