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.
GAME ON! BABY!!!!! To the Supreme Court. The Guat and Honduran invader columns made this possible! We owe these countries nothing! And include useless Mexico an El Salvador!
Cut ‘em all loose and Puerto Rico too. The Russians and Chinese can have them.
It takes 5 justices to “interpret” the Constitution to say whatever they want it to say. Those who subscribe to “original intent” are in the minority. Newly appointed Kavanaugh is definitely in the camp of continuing with established precedent.
Look, XIV (and XXII, for that matter) are horribly drafted and say things in plain English that contradict the intentions of the drafters.
But “some dead guy meant to say THIS” is not going to prevail, certainly not in a case like an EO over birthright citizenship. A President has the authority to order Secretary Pompeo not to issue passports to the US-born children of illegal aliens, he does not have the authority to define “subject to the jurisdiction of” in a way that binds future litigants or US district courts.
I think may have been given SS#s.
Here is the relevant text from the 14th Amendment:
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.
It all depends on the interpretation of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Are illegal entrants given that status?
As someone who has lobbied on the Hill on immigration matters for over 10 years, including stopping amnesty and eliminating birthright citizenship, I do more than just offer opinions. I spend time and effort (uncompensated) to change things.
“he does not have the authority to define “subject to the jurisdiction of” in a way that binds future litigants or US district courts.”
Sure he does. He’s the one that enforces the law. Don’t be silly.
CORRECT! And lets give credit to the marching columns of Guatemalans, Salvadorans, Hondurans etc that made this possible. They probe our defenses and The Donald has responded.
So TRUMP kills birth right citizenship and now we are on our way to a Supreme Court ruling.
Good point!
Quite a subtle argument, Electric. Clearly, the Constitution gives Congress the power of naturalization. Wong concerned natural born citizenship or birthright citizenship or citizenship at birth, not naturalization.
Congress plays a role regarding birthright citizenship, subject to the 14th Amendment since it was ratified.
While all person born here, subject to our laws, are birthright citizens by reason of the 14th Amendment, so too are persons born overseas of at least one U.S. citizen parent, (provided said U.S. citizen parent has invigorated his or her citizenship if he or her was born overseas).
The later form of natural born citizenship (by lineage, as opposed to place of birth) has its roots in English common law but was codified by law (that is, by Congress) and amended from the English common law in certain ways.
“While all person born here, subject to our laws, are birthright citizens by reason of the 14th Amendment”
Dead wrong. The reason for this thread, the discussion, and PDJT Trump’s E.O.
Btw, I’m always subtle
What Law Requires Birthright Citizenship?
Is automatic birthright citizenship for children of all legal and illegal aliens expressly required by the U.S. Constitution? On its face, the answer is “no.” No language in the Constitution specifically addresses how the children of foreigners must be dealt with in regards to citizenship. The 14th Amendment confers citizenship through “naturalization” or by birth to persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, but provides no guidance on when an alien is to be regarded as subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The next question, then, is whether any statute enacted by Congress specifically directs the granting of citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens. Again, the answer is “no.” The executive branch’s birthright citizenship policy is not based on any federal regulation. One might say that the practice has become policy without becoming law.
Because the current policy has not been taken through the standard legislative or regulatory processes, it has become official practice without any input from the American public or their elected representatives. A recent survey found that only 33 percent of Americans support the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.
https://cis.org/Report/Birthright-Citizenship-United-States (John Feere, 2010)
I think your hat is safe for another day!
Illegal aliens have deliberately avoided being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Hence their children would not be natural born citizens or citizens under the 14th amendment.
This is very awesome. This is quite dangerous for the lower courts to slap the injunction on because when it goes to Supreme court and he wins its then set in stone.
Precisely.
No executive order this impactful is ever justified. This is everything we rightly condemned Barky for doing. Given the language of the 14th I doubt anything short of a Costitutional Amendment or at least a SCOTUS decision could do this. And what happens when an executive order says well regulated militia ONLY means the National Guard and outlaws private ownership of firearms. I cannot believe Freepers could possibly agree with Trump’s methodology here.
Original intent of the 14th Amendment
Senator Jacob Howard (served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the 14th) clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside):
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. W. Williams:
I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Senator Jacob Howard states the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment published in the Congressional Record May 30, 1866.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
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.