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 will be another issue for the Suprems, there being no law granting citizenship to those born here with no citizen parent.
As POTUS, Trump is the top law enforcement official who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Birthright Citizenship the way it is applied today was fabricated by the administrative bureaucratic deep state progressives and was never actually legislated. In other words, Trump is simply ignoring illegal imposed regulatory precedent and in essence just enforcing the actual rule of law. The original intent of U.S. Constitution as written including amendments trumps any other laws, regulations, or rulings. There is no compromise or middle ground in this regard.
That’s it in a nutshell. Well said. No other comments needed.
If you read his comments CAREFULLY,you will find that he NOT ONLY discusses natural born citizens, but ALSO:
“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; ...”
CLEARLY, his opinion is that aliens ONLY become citizens “by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions ...”
Illegal aliens ARE NOT compliant, consequently, their children born in the United States ARE NOT EITHER.
FYI: Given his feelings on citizenship, do you think Representative Bingham would have voted FOR unlimited birthright citizenship?
OF COURSE NOT, but he VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT. This lends credence to the notion that birthright WAS NOT UNLIMITED !!!
That is not the meaning of the phrase (subject to the jurisdiction...)
The following link goes to an article that contains quotes from the men who authored the phrase and the debates on the 14th Amendment.
http://www.cairco.org/issues/unconstitutionality-citizenship-birth-non-americans
Given the clear language used, by the men who wrote the 14th Amendment and the men who made it law, it seems (to me) that the Supreme Court would be very hard pressed to rule against ending the anchor baby fallacy.
Trump may be the best president we’ve had since Lincoln, perhaps Washington. As much as I loved the Gipper, I’ve never seen such courage or read about such courage in a President.
“Trump may be the best president we’ve had since Lincoln, perhaps Washington.”
I told my wife recently that Trump is the greatest president of my lifetime. Truman was president when I was born.
My grandparents were born in Rochester, NY (1), Meriden, CT (1), and Brooklyn, NY (2) in 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1896.
At the time of their birth, only one of my 8 great-grandparents was a US citizen, having been born in New York City in 1864. The other seven great-grandparents were subjects of the Emperor of Germany or of Her Britannic Majesty Victoria Alexandrina.
At no time during the lives of my grandparents was it ever suggested that they were not US citizens. My grandfathers served in the Army and the Navy during WW I. My mother’s mother was a NYC public school teacher for 55 years at a time when US citizenship was a requirement.
Both of my grandfathers’ WW I draft cards had boxes to check for citizenship status. There were two boxes: “Natural born” and “Naturalized” (there was also a box labelled “Alien”). Since my grandparents were never naturalized, both of my grandfathers checked “natural born”.
Do you assert that none of the millions and millions of white children born to immigrants who were not naturalized were actually citizens? No one at the time asserted that - no one.
I have citizenship papers from a great great grandfather...it specifically asks or says that the applicant Renounces any loyalty to the Emperor of Germany. That’s I think how they became American citizens.
So, in case you people missed it...under the 14th, children born here to foreign nationals, whether here legally or illegally, are not U.S. citizens.
_-—————————————————————————
Not according to USSC Wong Kim Ark ~1895.
According to this decision, children born to legally residing aliens in allegiance to the US ARE born US citizens.
This has been the practice for over 100 years.
Not 100 years only since ole Teddy Kennedy stuck his finger in the immigration issue in the 1960’s 1970’s. or about 40 years.
Self-taught genius...learned his trade at the school of hard knocks in NY real estate, wrestling promoter, gambling casino, golf as player and golf course owner, winery (largest East of the Mississippi) and tv show presenter.
In summary, 50 years experience in negotiating with corrupt officials, corrupt unions, and corrupt government.
Ping to POTUS Trump stating that he intends to “end birthright citizenship by executive order”
Will Barry be getting nervous, now? Barry has no BC that isn’t forged in the public record, if President Trump gets around to pushing the issue.
14th Amendment and subsequent Immigration and Nationality Acts.
Ping to POTUS Trump stating that he intends to “end birthright citizenship by executive order”
Will Barry be getting nervous, now? Barry has no BC that isn’t forged in the public record, if President Trump gets around to pushing the issue.
Thanks, Seizethecarp. Wait until after midterms, and we may see action our country has never witnessed prior to President Trump's election.
Thanks for the ping!
Will Barry be getting nervous, now? Barry has no BC that isn’t forged in the public record, if President Trump gets around to pushing the issue.
Heh heh, thanks Seizethecarp, interesting take.
Listened to Rush’s podcast yesterday. It seems that Teddy Kennedy enacted something in ‘65 that started this whole anchor baby thing. It’s doubtful, or indeed unlikely that an EO can reverse an act of Congress signed into, or that unless the GOP gets a huge majority next week, it can be repealed. So the only way to get rid of Teddy’s immigration act would be a constitutional amendment starting in the states. If the states ratify it and then send it on to Congress, if it’s an election year, they might just feel pressured to give it the necessary super majorities in both houses, especially if there’s a red tsunami next week, as hoped. An EO, however, would be promptly blocked by the courts, and thereby make the issue red hot. So it’s good politics right before the election.
up next plyler v doe? educating the offspring of illegals...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202
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.
