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.
If they are not subject to our laws then how can we arrest them and deport them?
The law you cited does not say that children born to foreign nationals on U.S. soil become U.S. citizens.
Foreign nationals are subject to the jurisdictions of their own countries. Not ours.
Author’s intent? Plain language? Get with it, baby. Only another amendment will shut the leftards up. And they will squawk in opposition like angry crows. It might be that the debate will bring up the plain language and author’s intent, but that won’t shut them up. But if it passes, they will have to STFU.
He is not called the blue collar billionaire for nothing.:)
It’s plain language now...Another amendment? Shirely, you jest.
Insomuch as if they are in the USA and break a US law, they are subject to the jurisdictional law where they break it, but they are not originally subject to our jurisdiction, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country where they are a citizen. You must read the sentence as a whole - it states and are, that is very important.
There is history and clarification on the 14th regarding the citizenship clause by the very person that submitted it, look upthread.
Foreign nationals cannot be arrested if they violate our laws? Then how can we arrest and deport people here illegally?
2 posts above the one to which I replied has the answer (#42).
You also got a sound answer right below your post to which I am replying now.
“... AND subject to their jurisdiction”
The left always ignore that part.
Why were indians not given citizenship under the 14th when it was first enacted?
Shirely, they were under the jurisdiction of the U.S.? Right?
Please, Mr. President, do it...Winning...
Would require 60 votes in the senate.
The point is jurisdiction, not the ability to arrest and detain - those are different things. Simply breaking a law in another country does not make you subject to their jurisdiction and not that of your home country - you are first and foremost subject to the jurisdiction of the country where you are a citizen.
This would be jurisdiction over the subject matter, not necessarily personal jurisdiction.
the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.
IOW, owing no other allegiances and so indians were not born citizens under the 14th. Imagine that.
Get stock in Orville Redenbacher
“The point is jurisdiction, not the ability to arrest and detain - those are different things.”
Yes. Doodledork is well versed in the liberal talking points because he’s a troll.
Any honest article would specify that Melmed was in the Obama administration.
Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy makes this timely
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.