You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Government
Trump vows to end birthright citizenship in challenge to 14th Amendment
2018-10-31
[NYPOST] President Trump said he’ll sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizens or illegal immigrants colonists born on US soil ‐ an action that could spark a heated constitutional battle.

"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 told "Axios on HBO" in a snippet of an interview that aired Tuesday. "It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end."

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t," Trump continued, claiming an executive order would be sufficient to change the policy.

Questioned that such an action was 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."

Trump’s comments come as he tries to focus the debate on immigration and a caravan of Central American migrants colonists heading to the US border as the country a week before the midterm elections reels from the massacre of 11 worshipers at a Pittsburgh synagogue and pipe-bomb mailings to a number of prominent Democrats.
Fox News adds:
Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret ‐ subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ‐ meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants colonists, then you are entitled to citizenship," Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. "If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you."
Of course the President's loyal supporter and Republican party champion, Speaker of The House Paul Ryan says it cannot be done.
That remains to be seen. In the meantime, and more importantly, the news that President Trump has announced his intention will cause a recalibration of plans across the migrating world.
Posted by:Fred

#8  So all you foreign ladies, given all this uncertainty, if you want a U.S. baby, just boink an American boy.
Posted by: rammer   2018-10-31 22:07  

#7  The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
Posted by: Beavis   2018-10-31 10:55  

#6  It just occurred to me that this might all be designed to settle legal citizenship issues before 2024. Any executive order would immediately be challenged and should get to the Supreme before then.

Ted Cruz's father was born in Cuba, his mother was born in the US but they were living in Canada when Ted was born. I bet Ted would like these issues settled by 2024 or so...
Posted by: rjschwarz   2018-10-31 10:29  

#5  I agree with Darth on this.

Whatever E.O. comes out of the WH needs to be narrowly written. It will immediately face legal challenge in District court, likely in a venue held by leftists.

But's Darth's proposal would be far superior to any EO.
Posted by: lord garth   2018-10-31 09:59  

#4  The 14th was put in place to make sure the slaves became citizens after the civil war. In 1965, Kennedy bastardized it to get open borders.

While I could see a EO being used for say, 120 halt on citizenship for children born from Iranian nationals, I can't see one standing up to the legal challenges if it lasted longer.

Congress can define when citizenship does take effect and this is something they need to do. For example:

A child born from one or two US citizens is bestowed US citizenship.

A child born a non citizen is granted the same status as the parent.
Green card holders and visa holders have the same protection and rights bestowed on the child.
A non citizen going through the naturalization process will have the same protection and rights bestowed on the child, and when naturalization is complete, citizenship will be bestowed on the child.

Pretty simple and stops anchor babies while not violating the 14th amendment.
Posted by: DarthVader   2018-10-31 09:20  

#3  Women coming here to have anchors NEEDS to STOPPED, PERIOD!~~~~IMO. GO FOR IT DJT
Posted by: ranture   2018-10-31 08:32  

#2  I believe the President has the five votes on this issue that matter.
Posted by: jvalentour   2018-10-31 06:45  

#1  You mean the 14th Amendment that SCOTUS suspended the 'equal protection before the law regardless of race' for 'affirmative action' to correct a 'historic wrong' and has spent its time for over half a century hemming and hawing about excuses rather than ending their action that is clearly against the text of the document?

The historical and textural intent was to prevent newly freed slaves from being disenfranchised as non-American. That was achieved. The interpenetration we have about foreigners today is just that an interpretation done through the judiciary.

There must be a principle in the action. You have a glaring problem that arises if simply being within the border make one a citizen. Since the end of WWII, we've had hundreds of thousands of American service families deployed and living overseas giving birth in foreign countries, not counting probably an similar number of 'love children' fathered by American service personnel.

Choose.

If the child is born in the sovereign territory of a state, that child is of that country.

If by birth through one parent is an American then the child is American.

We don't want principles. We want what we want regardless of whatever. As amply demonstrated by SCOTUS' continuing rationales used to extend affirmative action in one guise or another.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2018-10-31 06:33  

00:00