![](http://newseuropa.es/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/1540758611_449252_1540758821_noticia_normal_recorte1.jpg";)
![](http://oi64.tinypic.com/30t1h1v.jpg";)
![](https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/181029-migrant-caravan-feature-image.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=1236&h=820&crop=1";)
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.
Great. It will come down to a legal challenge thru SCOTUS. It would have been better if Congress had passed a law eliminating birthright citizenship, which would then be challenged legally.
My fear is that SCOTUS will rule against the Executive Order on process grounds and defer the decision to Congress without resolving it legallly. In any event, this will eventually determine if a Constitutional amendment is needed or not.
get-r-done!
“It would have been better if Congress had passed a law eliminating birthright citizenship, which would then be challenged legally.”
Why? There was never a law passed granting illegals citizenship and why would you want the courts to have the final say? Bizarre
He does that and the “immigration problems” in the US are solved the moment he finishes the, P, in Trump.
It’d be a dream come true if he made it retroactive about 18 years. Be an absolute fantasy come true if he made it retroactive October 3, 1993.
Interestingly, the Left/MSM/Liberals/Democrats never had any issues with the last president using EOs to try and push his agenda, as we all know.
And now.....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.
Someone correct me, if needed, but didn’t SCOTUS just affirm that the Executive Branch has control over such things?
I was always told an illegal alien or anyone visiting from a foreign country (NOT A US Citizen) is NOT subject to jurisprudence of the United States. They are subject to the jurisprudence to the countries they are from. If your on vacation in France and you wife has her baby, it is NOT a French citizen. You are citizens of the United States therefore the child is American.
There are over 30 countries that have birthright citizenship thru jus solis. Mexico is one of them. So is Canada. Ireland was the last European country to have it and it eliminated it thru a constitutional amendment.
If you want to call the law built up around that war manual a religion.
Germany may offer the child citizenship, but as a child born overseas to a family on official duty, she is a native born natural US citizen.
The US does not recognize duality. Either you are a US citizen or you are not.
It also depends on where the child was born- if in a US military hospital on US installation, then Germany has no record of her birth, if in a German facility attended by a German physician, then she indeed may have a German BC, but that BC will specify the citizenship of her parents. If the latter, the parents needed to file ( the hospital probably did I while they were there) a form to the US Embassy reporting the “birth of a US Child abroad”, beginning the US State issuance of a BC.
My son was born in a similar situation, but in a US facility, he searched the German records for any reference to his birth in West Germany, there is none. He is a US citizen naturally, by virtue of our official duty there. He has a US State Department BC.
Is it me or did this guy just lose his own argument?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship.
I didn’t think that was ever an issue, since the parents are in the US legally. It is the kids that are born to parents in the country illegally that are the issue. For example, all the pregnant, or soon to be pregnant, women in the zombie caravan from Honduras, who can’t wait to pop out a kid in an American hospital. The case the Left points to is the late 1800s and if I’m not mistaken, the parents were in the country legally.
This is HUGE. The biggest gift to the country in a generation. No doubt it goes to the SC. I don’t trust Roberts he is compromised. This is great but l fear another betrayel from him.
Please do it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its time for Scotus to lay down the law!
Birthright citizenship still exists until the existing laws are changed. We grant citizenship to the 300,000 children born to illegal aliens every year. They are entitled to all the benefits of citizenship, including US passports. This has been the practice for over 100 years.
That will be the issue for the court or congress.
Can they forced to serve in our military? Enlisted maybe. can they vote in our elections? Sorry, everyone has a law abiding responsibility wherever they are.
The best part of waking up,
Is Donald Trump with a thump.
The whining and gnashing of teeth from the Left will be epic!
I doubt an executive order will pass muster, Congress probably needs to act, but it's a good start.
“I didn’t think that was ever an issue, since the parents are in the US legally.”
It is an issue because the 14th was clear. The author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was crystal clear. It didn’t include foreigners or aliens. Whether here legally or illegally.
The court, through wong kim ark, made children born to foreign nationals, who were legally here, U.S. citizens at birth. So those children are court created citizens. CINOS. Citizens in name only, since only congress can naturalize citizens.
MAGA
There isn’t a law making them citizens. You’ve never understood that for some unknown reason.
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.