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.
And I never said we lived in a Judicial tyranny. We do if we have activist judges that legislate From the Bench. But right now the way the Supreme Court is stacked, we are good to go. There are three branches of government for a reason. Now if one branch acts outside of its scope and the other branches don’t hold it in check, then there is a problem. But I have no clue what you are talking about because you’re not explaining it very well. Are you from Democrat Underground?
I still don’t know how they’re handing out U.S. birth certificates to children of illegal aliens.
That irks me to no end. These turds have MORE rights than my daughters born to me overseas in the service of my country. According to the way it is now, my kids are not considered NBC and I know an Act of Congress could make this right.
GO TRUMP! MAGA! The first president that gives a s**t.
Stern has ruined more lives then he may have in any way helped with the garbage he spews (though maybe in the last 25 years he has changed? I haven’t listened to him since about then)
The courts will decide it regardless of whether Congress passes a law or the President issues an EO. Both actions will be challenged legally and the Courts must adjudicate the constitutionality of the edict/laws. It may require a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. Until then, the current practice will continue.
I get it. I don't like birthright citizenship either and believe that the 14th Amendment was falsely interpreted. We know that from the contemporaneous discussions in Congress about the intention of the Amendment and what "under the jurisdiction" meant. There is no law that specifically grants US citizenship to the children of illegal aliens and tourists, but practice and precedent have made it so. It needs to be changed.
If President Trump issues an EO, it will be the first step to righting this wrong. I expect lots of opposition in Congress and the courts. But the American people have made it clear in poll after poll that they don't support birthright citizenship.
Yes, yes, yes!!
Please do this. It can’t happen soon enough!
YES! The 14th Amendment was NEVER meant to be used in this manner.
Excellent.
According to the amendment, if an alien has not yet been naturalized in the US, then they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The writers obviously are not talking about having to follow the laws while they are here.
I can think of no example of a naturalized citizen who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
What part of “unauthorized” don’t they get?
No other country in the world allows this.
We should allow all legal residents’ children born here to become citizens. BUT NOT ILLEGALS OR ‘TOURISTS’ PUSHING OUT BABIES.
THIS NEEDS TO STOP NOW.
I agree the jurisdiction question must be answered via a SCOTUS ruling...after that its bombs away.
No, we would use the same criteria that we use for births abroad. Jus sanguinis (by blood) will determine citizenship.
Bravo The Greatest Presidency of all time.
You and I agree, but the system has allowed the birthright citizenship l
interpretation to be used throughout our system. That is why SCOTUS must be forced to rule on that clause. They never have before. Congress could pass legislation saying birthright citizenship is not our law, but unless Congress restricts scotus from overturning their law, it would end up before scotus anyway. The president is forcing this decision to happen.
I think the clause does not allow birthright citizenship to be the law.
“The courts will decide it regardless of whether Congress passes a law or the President issues an EO. Both actions will be challenged legally and the Courts must adjudicate the constitutionality of the edict/laws. It may require a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. Until then, the current practice will continue. “
The 14th amendment is clear. The author of the citizenship clause was painfully clear. The Constitution doesn’t need ‘interpretation’, it needs to be farking followed. Everyone in the employ of the fed govt has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. That’s what the very stable genius PDJT is doing...He’s the chief executive and he’s going to enforce the law. Not some ahole courts interpretation of it.
To be more specific, the United States deals with native Indians through treaties, which is how we deal with other foreign nations according to the Constitution.
-PJ
He’s brilliant.
Plus this opens up the national debate on this issue with the globalists and forced them to self-describe.
“So, Globalists. Explain your wanting EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET TO PARTAKE IN THE RICHES OF HARD WORKING AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS. Let us know why you want this and how it will work. We’ll wait.”
“Morphed into the children of illegal aliens and tourists...”— Morphed does not = law.
It’s high time to morph the 14th A back to its original intent which is just and practical for the survival of America.
MAGA
While you call it quibbling for the time frame that illegal aliens began raping America over misinterpretation of immigration law, many here would see this as morphing policy born of ‘Quisling Kennedy.’
“Quisling” (Kwiz lin); a term originating in Norway, a person who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor.
“Kennedy” (Ken na dee); the fat fornicating whale of the Senate who single handedly did more to subvert and undermine sound US immigration policy in order to save the democrat party from eventually dissolving.
>
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
>
Incorrect. It needs ZERO ‘interpretation’. It needs only a FULL reading of its plain & simple English.
Like the 2nd, the govt lawyers (I repeat myself), like to omit clauses and sections of the Const. they don’t like. Hell, when’s the last time A1S8 was ever uttered, let alone “shall NOT be infringed”?
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.