Hey rmt, tell me again how you wanted a president who would follow the cons ution.
https://www.axios.com/trump-birthrig...1fd72ea82.html
Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order
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 do entary 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 on HBO" 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 cons utional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
When told 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." (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)
"It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
The president expressed surprise that "Axios on HBO" knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "
Behind the scenes: "Axios on HBO" 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 legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a cons utional 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 cons utional 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 cons utional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Cons utional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Cons ution 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 "uncons utional."
Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undo ented 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 undo ented 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.
Hey rmt, tell me again how you wanted a president who would follow the cons ution.
Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.
Originalists and other interested people can find the Senate debates regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (the immediate precursor to the 14th Amendment) here. Seems pretty clear the majority then thought persons born on US soil are citizens regardless of the immigration status of their parents. They understood they were crafting standards for citizenship and civil rights beyond freed slaves.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag....db&recNum=602
Supreme Court precedent here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
Children born to (then) racially ineligible parents are US citizens.
Trump can run it up the flagpole and see if SCOTUS salutes.
But no, probably not.
No. This is just episode #765 of The Idiot Chronicles: Donald Trump Edition
They were bad only because the other party was holding power and the black president issued them.
Cons ution bad now
RapeK would consent
no would be immediately challenged, hit with an injunction, and is completely uncons utional tbh
RapeyK wanted to imprison a refugee applicant until she was forced to out a kid. Of course he'd try to find a way to pwn the browns again.
Repugs seem to be avoiding this thread. Can’t say I blame them
nm
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-30-2018 at 01:18 PM.
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!
very true. Why aren’t republicans saying anything about this???
You opposing dumbphucks are supporting Chinese who fly in at 8 months and set up shop at hotels for sole purpose of having baby here. To boot they stiff the hospitals on the bill.
Same with Messicans who come across at 8 1/2 months and park by the ER room.
Stop rewarding criminal behavior.
STFU you snowflakes.
if you don't like it, change the 14th Amendment
He can't. He's lying to Chris and CosmicNutcase (his base).
Build a hospital wall
?
No brainer change.
The debate is whether Trump should use executive order or allow Congress to vote?
neither. you'd need to amend the cons ution
You defend anchor babies?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)