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.
This will be a final trigger sending leftists in suicide bombing raids nation-wide. They’re teetering on the edge of suicide already with the level of madness that rage causes.
That is ok Familyop.
This man is brilliant, he did this on purpose. He will "trigger" them, they will go koo-koo-banana-so like they did with Kanvanaugh because it will go to "The Supremes" and it will be tight IMHO, Roberts is Kennedy, really, so it is 4 4 1 IMHO it is not a 5 4 court, the question is, with Obama gone and the Deep State feeling the heat, will he vote for the Constitution and the originalist definition of the 14th, or will it be Obamcare 2.0 for him again. Once at the Supremes they will make a Kavanaugh like spectacle that will turn of this frankly American Centrist movement ( as Selena Zito calls them "The Great Revolt ) and his popularity will rise further, and the left will be further tattered.
I'd love to know what PDJT studied in terms of psych, human behavior and or who he hired through the years in terms of personal intel and what makes people tick, because he is like Gretsky moving around defense-men towards a net and the Goalie doesn't have a prayer every freakin time!
That makes perfect sense. They were born here but subject to another nation’s jurisdiction. Thus, they weren’t given citizenship. They were not the equivalent of the stateless slaves under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S.
“A person born here of “legal residency” (key words) are definitely citizens of this country”
Which law states that?
“I’d love to know what PDJT studied in terms of psych, human behavior and or who he hired through the years in terms of personal intel and what makes people tick, because he is like Gretsky moving around defense-men towards a net and the Goalie doesn’t have a prayer every freakin time! “
True. A very stable genuis with street smarts. A deadly combo for the libs.
I can easily read that as meaning the children born of Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers from other countries. Yes, this will be challenged hard.
Thanks for posting!
Ping to PDJT EO ending birthright citizenship
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3701119/posts?page=1#1
Please, tell me I’m not dreaming!
AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof........ping..bang..boom.
Of citizen parents. Not just legally here. Yours would include children of internationsl students, green card visas, tourists etc.
Awesome
YES!! Bump that!
So if Mexico applies for a writ of habeas corpus to free Kate Steinle's killer based on lack of jurisdiction, you're fine with that?
You think Mexico's attempts to do this in the Texas death penalty cases were correct, and the killers were wrongly executed?
If getting a lethal dose of pentobarbital by order of a US court is not being subject to US jurisdiction, I don't know what is.
“I can easily read that as meaning the children born of Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers from other countries”
Do you see the commas? Ok then.
Huh? How much whippet canisters do I need to huff to catch up?
Yeah, sucks right? By the fact that I served this country which included overseas, my children and you are denied the right to run for President just because they were born outside the U.S. Yet, some wetback can come here, drop a kid and that kid CAN!
Just doesn’t sound right to me.
This really would be a great move to curb illegal immigration. Though I doubt it’ll go through. I need to get educated on this. For one, can the Congress somehow stop his EO without a presumed lawsuit brought by an aggrieved party and two, it will surely be challenged constitutionally. Though I’m not sure how anyone here illegally, including their offspring, have any constitutional rights.
Good, let's go for it!
The 14th Amendment?
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.