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.
That’s what I’ve been saying it’s due to that fat bass turd Kennedy, the whale of the Senate.
I don't think we're quite there yet. With Kennedy gone, there's every chance that Roberts will become the court's new swing vote.
Don't forget that he stabbed us through the heart with Obamacare.
Yeah, that worries me. I’m hoping Ruth Buzzy doesn’t last too long hope Trump gets to replace her
There is no law which compels the United States to grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, who are born on our soil.
What you're referring to, is the ongoing misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
The late, great Lawrence Auster had a fabulous write up on the subject of Birthright Citizenship not long before he died.
It is preserved here:The Truth About Birthright Citizenship
The summary page of all the discussions is here:The Birthright Citizenship Discussion at VFR
Everything here has been discussed before, and it's surprising that it's even controversial what Trump is doing, at least on the American Right.
It's not.
The most important reference in the article is the brief by Meese and Eastman:Brief of Amicus Curiae The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence In Support of Respondents
Larry also wrote The Path to National Suicide which explains how we got here, and he wrote it back when people didn't understand what was happening to us as a result of the Left's shenanigans.
The EO is probably a directive to the Federal Government to stop recognizing the children of illegal aliens as citizens for the purpose of issuing passports. There has been a long standing directive from the State Department to do so, absent any legal directive from the courts or the Congress - they just went ahead and did it. They may have some thin backing from Wong Kim Ark or even Plyler v. Doe, but not much. In any event, for the State Department, Trump definitely can change that, and in the long term, the Congress has authority to clarify the Fourteenth, they just haven't. There have been many bills to do so, all failing. But if we hold the Congress, I think that would not be the case.
And that is why we MUST hold the Congress in a week.
Good stuff.
See Post 325.
Distribute widely.
He simply states that he was born in Germany while his father was stationed there, anyone in the need to know, knows what that means-that he is a US citizen.
His BC states he is a US citizen born abroad. Physically he was born on Leighton Barracks, a (former) US installation in West Germany. His BC is recorded at the US Embassy, Frankfort; and Washington DC, but he was born within the FRG state of Bavaria.
As a child of an overseas serving military member, he is a native and natural born US citizen, just like CPT John McCain et al.
While many argue Blackstone and the French guy, citizenship follows blood line before it follows soil.
That is why the 14th is misinterpreted to include illegals dropping babies with illicit purposes on US soil. They are not under the “jurisdiction” of the US regarding loyalties, they are criminals stealing identity and the left/right statists smile, nod and look for a vote...
If a person can be drafted in the military, or vote, then they are under the “jurisdiction thereof”, not simply by required to follow civil law.
Remember, the 14th was drafted and passed post CW explicitly to encompass slaves and children of slaves as citizens. Reading more into it is illogical, but then we are dealing with illogical and bent folks.
“This will not 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.”
The understanding of Sen. Howard is not determinative of the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, but lets assume it is. When I read this, it seems to me Howard is saying that only foreigners who belong to the families of ambassadors are excluded, not foreigners in general.
I think you are reading in an “and” that isn’t there. I would also urge you to read the entire debate in which that quote appears, and remember that Howard did not write those words—they are transcribed from a floor debate.
There might be a good originalist argument for your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but I don’t think it comes from that quote.
The application of 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth has resulted in millions of the children of illegal aliens born on our soil to become US citizens entitled to all the benefits that obtains including voting. That citizenship will not be withdrawn from those already having it.
What you're referring to, is the ongoing misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
You can characterize it anyway you want, but the present practice and precedent continues to confer citizenship on these people every day. Only the courts can correct this "misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment." Trump has started the conversation and I applaud him for it.
I have been working for years to get this into the public forum. Despite many bills introduced by people like Steve King to eliminate birthright citizenship, very few in Congress and the Executive Branch have taken the issue seriously. It is costing us billions of dollars annually in medicaid, educational, and welfare costs. It also provides an incentive for people to come here to have their children, i.e., birth tourism, which is a huge business. It cheapens the meaning of citizenship and it transform the country demographically. When you bring in 1.1 million legal permanent immigrants a year and add 300,000 anchor babies annually, it doesn't take long to colonize this country.
Larry Auster, a great, great man.
Great links. Here is another:
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/birthright-citizenship-stems-fundamental-misunderstanding-14th
“Larry Auster, a great, great man”
Yes. He was. It was very hard for me to see him go. An intellect like that comes along so infrequently.
But he lives on in our wonderful cyberspace, a free creation of our collective intellect.
Today is a monumental day. Larry helped bring it about.
Interesting. Thanks for the note.
That's really the bottom line. I hope to see the President throw gasoline on this fire until it consumes the courts, the media, the social networks, and Congress.
Settling this question is long overdue.
You want to stand on plain language? What about the plain right to keep and bear arms. What about the “Constitutional right” to an abortion. Where’s the plain language for that? The Constitution is now a dead white European document, or a living document, depending on how your coin lands. It needs to have the plain language renewed in no uncertain terms, to save it from judicial misinterpretation.
Thanks. I see that now. We’ll see if it gets a reaction.
Larry was so far ahead of the curve on the immigration issue. He inspired many people like me to get engaged.
You should read this from a co-author of the 14th Amendment:
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black and white, are citizens by birth–natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians.”
Cong. Globe, 37th Cong., 2d Sess. 1639 (1862) (statement of Rep. Bingham)
Seems to me he is imply lawful entry and naturalization are prerequisites.
I’m now hearing that the president is CLARIFYING and not ending. He is clarifying that it doesn’t apply to anyone illegally in the US. Scotus will agree with that.
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.