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.
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.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”
It is beyond question that the United States Congress has the ability to pass a bill which, if signed into law by the President or if his veto is overridden, would become law, which law would specify who is and who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It should be noted that during the floor debate over passage of the 14th Amendment, the author of the amendment specifically indicated that children of foreign diplomats would not be citizens, because they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He was asked that question because many of his fellow congressmen believed that the language could be interpreted very broadly (and surprise, surprise, it has been), but at least no one has tried this with the children of foreign diplomats. A simple statement in the law that the child of two parents who were not both citizens, both permanent residence, or a combination thereof would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States would end the entire anchor baby problem instantly.
As for those who are already citizens because they were born here to illegals or two those without permanent resident status, because the Congress did not act, I do not believe that a retroactive revocation of their citizenship will pass muster in the courts, including the Supreme Court. However, if you eliminate anchor babies when Trump signs a bill doing so into law, the problem ends immediately. The incentive to get into the United States, especially for women who are six or more months pregnant, is dramatically reduced, as will be the volume of cases being heard in our immigration court system.
With regard to the subject matter of this thread, the apparently impending Executive Order to be signed by the President, I am not sure that he can do this and have it be upheld in the courts. Certainly, the Ninth Circuit or some other Leftist Circuit will overrule it, so the real question is not that, but whether the Supreme Court will back him up. On the one hand, he is not actually introducing or rewriting the law, he is just interpreting it for employees of the executive branch. In that sense, there is a powerful argument to be made for the proposition that the order would be constitutional. On the other hand, since this is an action that would affect the rights of literally millions of people, there is a significant possibility that the courts will give a thumbs down on it. However, even if the latter situation occurs, in a way this would be good. Trump is accustomed to playing 3-D chess when it comes to putting together business deals, and he has learned well how to do the same in politics. If he loses in the courts, he first of all will have solidified his credibility with his base. He will have also restarted (or just plain started) the debate over birthright citizenship, which everybody else seems to want to sweep under the rug. He will then be able to hand-deliver legislation to the Congress on this issue. Such legislation will either be passed, in which case he and we are big winners, or it will not. If it does not pass in this upcoming session of Congress, then he has a phenomenal issue for the 2020 election. Further, from the very moment that he signs the Executive Order until the 2020 election, the entire Left will be running around screaming with their hair on fire (well, more than they already are, if you can imagine that). This will enable him to accomplish many more things in other areas without the other side paying much attention, because they will be hyper-focused on this issue like cat chasing a laser beam.
All things considered, I think that this is a masterstroke. He either gets what he wants pretty much right away, or has a phenomenal issue going into the 2020 election (which starts a week from tomorrow morning). Either way, the 20% were so of people in the middle on most political issues will get another taste of the utter insanity of the Left, and be able to compare and contrast that with the sensible, pro-American policies of the Republican Party. Whether it occurs in this two-year cycle, or when Congress is seated in 2021, I am firmly of the belief that we are on the verge of seeing the end of the abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. We are nearly at the end of the era of uncontrolled immigration which started in 1965, and that is cause for immense celebration and gratitude.
I don't think he can do it via EO.
The critical question concerns the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It can easily be argued that since the parents were not citizens, that clause does not apply to them. They are subjects of another country, not America.