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.
When the word “subject” is converted to a noun, then it all makes sense.
If you are born a “subject” of a country, then you are a citizen. The terms are interchangeable.
We don’t need a constitutional amendment about Birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment already addresses it. It just needs to be interpreted correctly. This one has to go to the Supreme Court.
I wonder whether the “dual citizenship” issue might be the ticket on which this turns. We say we don’t recognize dual citizenship, but how is that really enforced? If someone is a U.S. citizen by birth, and another country allows them to obtain citizenship without renouncing their U.S. citizenship, as of now, what’s to stop them from doing so? But if the rule is (exclusively) subject to the jurisdiction of, then if someone is born here a citizen of another country, then that means they are not citizens here. Maybe.
Just read it again..
And I’ll have to agree with you. I guess, even back then, we had some activist judges.
I think the biggest hurdle is going to be the Left’s argument of, Jus Soli. Again, a courtroom decision, that has somehow become “settled law”, even though the judiciary does not have the ability to do so. But, then again, Kennedy did it and, of course, since it went the way the Left wanted it to, they didn’t burn down a city near you or me.
But for me, Birthright Citizenship is the one and only thing that keeps these people coming. They all know that they can’t get benefits, but the kids they give birth to, in a US hospital gets them all.
Well, I wasn’t planning on running anyway. Ha ha. That said, all men are created equal. In our political environment, some are more equal than others. Especially Democrats and illegal invaders.
Of course they “got it wrong.” That’s not the point. You and I may agree it is wrong but the reality is millions of people gain citizenship this way and only Congress can change this. The President is trying to make this happen finally! Cripes, what will you do if Congress doesn’t make this right - which is the odds-on favorite of what will happen? This crap should have been taken care of over a hundred years ago!
He wants the EO to prompt a Court case.
He does not believe he can overturn 50 years of jurisprudence with an EO.
“That they’re not the final arbiters on what is constitutional....”
The Supreme Court certainly is, unless you’re planning on passing the Constitutional Amendment.
New line
And the Supreme Court is now fairly conservative. Might be even more so by the time this subject. Trump is brilliant to be doing this right now.
The law doesn’t have to be fixed to include anything. SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF
Foreign Nationals, Aliens, and Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That’s the written intent provided from the writer of the 14th Amendment, in relation to that clause.
Well said
Seems to me Trump just dropped a MOAB of an October surprise the week before the midterm elections.
The Trump signature:
Game changer
Unexpected
Massive
The US is neutral on dual citizenship. There is no law opposing it.
It’s almost like, in the English language, a word can have two different meanings depending on context. That would mean the word “keep” could mean “hold” but also to mean “own” or “store” at the same time. That kind of language usage would never happen in an amendment!
“The Supreme Court certainly is, unless you’re planning on passing the Constitutional Amendment.”
Really? So we do live in a judicial tyranny...Your not alone in believing that. Baffling.
We can quibble about how long this policy has been in place, but actual practice has been the rule for a long, long time. Children presenting a US birth certificate to get a passport has been in place long before the 1960s. The citizenship and legality of the parents were not questioned.
It was only in 1856 that Congress decided that the State Department would be the sole authority to issue passports. Before that, the states and cities were issuing passports.
From 1789 through late 1941, the constitutionally established government required passports of citizens only during two periods: during the American Civil War (1861–1865), as well as during and shortly after World War I (1914–1918). The passport requirement of the Civil War era lacked statutory authority. During World War I (1914–1918), European countries instituted passport requirements. The Travel Control Act of May 22, 1918, permitted the president, when the United States was at war, to proclaim a passport requirement, and President Wilson issued such a proclamation on August 18, 1918. World War I ended on November 11, 1918, but the passport requirement lingered until March 3, 1921, the last day of the Wilson administration.
The contemporary period of required passports for Americans under United States law began on November 29, 1941. A 1978 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 made it unlawful to enter or depart the United States without an issued passport even in peacetime.
Even when passports were not usually required, Americans requested U.S. passports. Records of the Department of State show that 130,360 passports were issued between 1810 and 1873, and that 369,844 passports were issued between 1877 and 1909. Some of those passports were family passports or group passports. A passport application could cover, variously, a wife, a child, or children, one or more servants, or a woman traveling under the protection of a man. The passport would be issued to the man. Similarly, a passport application could cover a child traveling with his or her mother. The passport would be issued to the mother. The number of Americans who traveled without passports is unknown.
Today, primary proof of US citizenship to obtain a passport includes either a US birth certificate or a Consular Report of Birth Abroad or Naturalization certificate.
Do it Mr. President!!!!!!!! MAGA!!!!!
“You and I may agree it is wrong but the reality is millions of people gain citizenship this way and only Congress can change this.”
Well, only the ones born here to legal foreign nationals, anyways. They’re CINOs. Citizens in name only. Court created citizens.
I still don’t know how they’re handing out U.S. birth certificates to children of illegal aliens.
Funny … the only time I hear Healthcare as an issue is when I turn on the TV. I never hear it as an issue when talking to actual people. Oh, strike that, the benefits coordinator at my company told me we were changing plans at the end of the year … but that is about it.
I thought Ronald Reagan was the best president of my time here on earth....I amend that statement. DJT will go down as the best president of my lifetime. lol
The thread of logic has been derailed, you’re not responding to what I wrote and how I was responding to another post. And I’m not going to bother to explain it either. It’s not rocket science.
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.