| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Levin and Horowitz: Yes, Trump can end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants with an executive order |
| 2018-11-01 |
| [Conservative Review] Tuesday on his radio program, LevinTV host Mark Levin spoke with Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz about birthright citizenship ‐ and that President Donald Trump is entirely within his rights to interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Horowitz told Levin that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens. He said that those who say otherwise, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., are "constitutionally illiterate." "Let’s put this in plain English here," Horowitz said. "Basically they’re saying, Mark, I could break into your home, kick down the door, drop a kid there, and he has the right to live there for the remainder of his life and there’s not a darn thing you can do about it." "The reality is that even if we agree to the notion of birthright citizenship ... there is no way you could extrapolate that to people who came here without consent. The key words are ’consent’ and ’sovereignty.’ Nothing ever supersedes that. Nobody could unilaterally assert jurisdiction and make it that there’s nothing we can do to stop this," he continued. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #22 Closing the birthright loophole would de-incentivize coming here. Illegals come here and have there babies and the child born here automatically are citizens. The illegals play the system because they know the Dems will will scream "We can't send the parents back to their country of origin because it would split up their families." The problem then gets kicked down the road and grows. Congress, under both parties has been feckless. Congress needs to grow a pair and completely reform laws regulating immigration. Immigration has spun out of control for decades and has bled the country. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2018-11-01 18:51 |
| #21 European Conservative, thanks for that link. First I'd heard of it. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2018-11-01 14:51 |
| #20 From what I understand the jurisdiction has to do with entities a country has treaties with, folks we often deport rather than put through the US courts. Deporting has been our action against Illegals for some time now as well so by that definition Trump is right. Still, Executive Orders are easily reversed. They are bad policy. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2018-11-01 14:48 |
| #19 I just find the whole "Anchor Baby" Theory preposterous. Give them, the "Anchor Baby", dual citizenship and deport the whole family. The parents because they are not "legal citizens" and the child because they need to be reunited with their legal guardians. |
| Posted by: magpie 2018-11-01 14:44 |
| #18 Yep. The current ruling came from the leftist courts championed by... Ted Kennedy. I'll repeat my solution: One or both parents are US citizens, US citizenship is bestowed to the child. If the parents are here on a visa or green card, the visa/card status is bestowed on the child. If the child wants to become a citizen later and has lived a while in the states, that process can be fast tracked. If one or both of the parents are going through the naturalization process, the child is granted the same status as the parents until the naturalization process is complete. Upon citizenship granted to the parents the child will be bestowed with US citizenship as well. If the parents are illegal, then the child gets no special protections just like the parents. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2018-11-01 14:43 |
| #17 Silentbrick "Before that, a parent had to be american." This can't be true. Wong Kim Ark was born in the U.S. and his parents were both Chinese. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-11-01 14:37 |
| #16 ... President Donald Trump is entirely within his rights to interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Yeah. And just wait until SCOTUS does it too. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2018-11-01 14:25 |
| #15 Here's the thing, they only started this birthright citizen thing since 1960. Before that, a parent had to be american. So for almost 200 years in America, being born here to non-americans did NOT make you one. It has simply been how they suddenly decided to interpet the 14th amendment. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2018-11-01 14:06 |
| #14 Wasn't Harry Reid calling for the same thing a few years back? Of course, that was before Hispanics became such a powerful force in Las Vegas donors... I mean unions. |
| Posted by: AuburnTom 2018-11-01 13:47 |
| #13 Let me be clear on that: I DO understand that many Americans find ius soli for illegal immigrants problematic. I'd be one of them. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-11-01 12:10 |
| #12 As of January 1, 2000, a child born in Germany to non-German parents automatically acquires German citizenship at birth by jus soli if: (1) at least one parent had lived legally in Germany for at least eight years prior to the birth; (2) at the time of the birth, that parent had a permanent residence permit (either an Aufenthaltsberechtigung or, for the three years prior to the birth, an unbefristete Aufenthaltserlaubnis). But as I already said: Germany has a different citizenship law. It used to be entirely ius sanguinis, but this has changed a bit. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-11-01 10:13 |
| #11 1. if any of the (DNA) parents are already American. 2. if legally in the country. Counter question - Of all the children born of American military families stationed in Germany for the last 50 years, are they German or American? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-11-01 10:02 |
| #10 A few questions: Do you think the denial of birthright citizenship should apply to 1) Children of illegal immigrants only 2) Children of illegal immigrants and tourists 3) Children of all foreigners in the U.S. (including greencard holders) And Do you want to applying the new restrictions retroactively? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-11-01 09:47 |
| #9 Also a baby of an illegal immigrant hasn't violated any law. Don't care. They're not Americans. If Europe wants to take in the world, extinguish yourselves. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2018-11-01 09:27 |
| #8 "sneaking into the country does not confer the rights and responsibilities of citizenship" No, of course it doesn't, but we're not talking about the rights of that person, but of the right of the child. As I've said it's entirely up to the U.S. how it wants to handle citizenship. European countries do it differently. But I think the language of the 14A is rather clear. It doesn't even mention the status of the parents. I also think the framers didn't even think about "illegal immigration" at the time the amendment was designed. So yes, it could need a few corrections. But I doubt this can be done by executive order. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-11-01 09:12 |
| #7 |
| Posted by: Thons Hitler1576 2018-11-01 09:08 |
| #6 An illegal immigrant is not an "outlaw" and not without legal protection. You are getting lost in the analogy and missing the point: sneaking into the country does not confer the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Being entitled to vote in elections or being required to register for military service are two examples that come to mind. In a similar vein, I personally don't think that giving birth in an airport lounge while on a transnational flight should entitle you to citizenship of that country. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2018-11-01 09:06 |
| #5 I seriously doubt that. An illegal immigrant is not an "outlaw" and not without legal protection. If you kill, rob or rape him/her, he/she will have same protection under the law as any U.S. citizen. And you will go to prison if you harm that person. And if an illegal immigrant breaks U.S. law he/she will be prosecuted under U.S. jurisdiction. Also a baby of an illegal immigrant hasn't violated any law. Btw of course the U.S. can amend its birthright laws as it seems fit. But this way? Really? An executive order can be nullified by the next president. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-11-01 08:47 |
| #4 That's SCOTUS's job :) Those under the law. There is an old English term - outlaw. "The term outlawry referred to the formal procedure of declaring someone an outlaw, i.e. putting him outside the sphere of legal protection. In the common law of England, a judgment of (criminal) outlawry was one of the harshest penalties in the legal system, since the outlaw could not use the legal system for protection, e.g. from mob justice." Those who live in Central America or elsewhere are outside of US laws. To legally enter you must comply with US laws, thus now come under the law (its rights, procedures, and protections). To enter unlawfully retains that status - outside the law, thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the law. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-11-01 08:34 |
| #3 Procopius: How do you define "legal jurisdiction"? |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-11-01 08:04 |
| #2 Trumps playing their game on them. Hemming and hawing in Congress meets an EO, then it goes to the judiciary. If the Left enjoys legislating by the judiciary, they're going to find out two can play that game, and he's playing the long game. One more socialist seat vacancy in SCOTUS and they're outflanked. All the rest is legal rhetoric. If SCOTUS can suspend 'equal before the law' to implement affirmative action policies, then it can 'interpret' birth right to those under the legal jurisdiction of the United States - ie citizens and those legally permitted into country. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-11-01 08:03 |
| #1 " that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment" Just like a Democratic President could "interpret" the 2A to apply only to militia members? Be careful what you wish for. The fact is that the ink on that executive order wouldn't have dried before the first judge orders an injunction against it. The Supreme Court will decide it. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2018-11-01 07:42 |