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.
Somehow I don’t think it would be retroactive, once citizenship is granted it must be taken away legally. Not through an executive order. Congress could pass something, but I suspect they would not. It would be a huge upheaval in society, there are so many. I would love to be proved wrong on this.
Way to go Pres Trump. Sadly I fear some liberal judge will block it in a nano second
USSC will give him the right in a nano second right back at them!!!
Wouldn’t that be considered against Freedom of Religion since it directly preempts the duty of Muslims to move into kafir territory and reproduce until a base converts it to being part of the Umma. See UK, Belgium etc. Haters gotta hate..
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a)a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"
It could be fixed by inserting the words "Of parents legally in the United States" right after the word "born". Easy, peasy.
“Somehow I don’t think it would be retroactive, once citizenship is granted it must be taken away legally”
It was never given legally. It was citizenship conjured up out of thin air by the courts who can’t make anyone a citizen. No ex post facto laws to be concerned with...
See what lawlessness begets?
Good question. Of course he can by executive order.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.I don't think he can do it via EO.
It cites the 14th and that was already discussed above.
Not sure about that. My friend had her daughter in Germany while hubby was stationed there. The daughter has dual citizenship.
He’s timing this out perfectly to combat the dims, and get all of his supporters to the voting booths. He’s very clever.
Agreed, except they have social security numbers, drivers licenses, they are living as citizens, some for decades. Many receiving benefits like social security. Not a simple undo. Stopping the newborn from receiving ss#s and benefits and their moms too is at least a start. Like I said I would be happy to be proved wrong. To let this leak before the midterms is just another sign that he needs a bigger majority in Congress so these complex fixes can be addressed. Yes they will be challenged right away but the courts are in place now. I am looking for Ginsburg to retire the day after the midterms if the Dems don’t pull it off. I think she is hanging on for that.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yay pen and phone legislation.
In the tradition of "I have a pen and a phone". I approve, because that is how I interpret "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Those who still have a claim to aid from their embassy are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of their home country's government.
Imagine that. A president who keeps his word!
Now, what does this mean? Is a visitor to the USA "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA?
You said there was no law and I provided the link to one. Whether or not it is Constitutional is up for the courts to decide. And if the President issues his Executive Order then challenges to that will give the courts the case they need to weigh in on the question and decide it once and for all.
That’s the rub, we don’t need a constitutional amendment, the language of the 14th is clear - it does not apply to children of non-citizens because they are not subject to our jurisdiction/laws simply due to the fact that they are not here legally.
Can they be arrested and tried in our courts if they break our laws? Then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
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.