Trump targets U.S. birthright citizenship as elections loom

[webfact]

Trump targets U.S. birthright citizenship as elections loom

By Lawrence Hurley and Susan Heavey

 

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Southern Illinois Airport in Murphysboro, Illinois, U.S., October 27, 2018. REUTERS/Al Drago

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With congressional elections a week away, President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he will seek to scrap the right of citizenship for U.S.-born children of non-citizens and illegal immigrants as he tries again to dramatically reshape immigration policies.

 

Reviving his support for a legally questionable theory, Trump told the Axios news website he would issue an executive order on so-called birthright citizenship, an issue that has long rankled some conservative Republicans.

 

Trump’s previous calls to end the practice have resonated with his political base, but moderate Republicans and some legal experts say Trump is running afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War to ensure that black Americans previously subject to slavery had full citizenship rights, citizenship is granted to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States."

 

It has been routinely interpreted over the years to confer citizenship to people born in the United States whose parents are illegal immigrants.

 

Trump, who has made rhetoric against illegal immigrants a central plank of his presidency, originally spoke out against birthright citizenship when he first started running for president in 2015.

 

One Republican member of Congress, frequent Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham, said he would move to introduce legislation "along the same lines" as Trump's order.

 

Neither Graham nor Trump gave any details about the latest plan. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

 

Other Republicans were critical. U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump could not scrap the right with the stroke of a pen.

 

"You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order," Ryan, the top Republican in Congress, said in an interview with radio station WVLK, the Washington Post reported.

 

In the run-up to the Nov. 6 congressional elections, Trump has seized on a caravan of migrants from Central America who are trekking through Mexico toward the United States, calling the migrants a threat. On Monday, the United States said it would send over 5,200 troops to help secure the border with Mexico.

 

Bill Kristol, editor at large of the conservative Weekly Standard and a Trump critic, said in a Twitter post:

 

"The shrinking caravan of refugees isn't a threat to the country or the constitutional order. A president who tries to end birthright citizenship by executive order is."

 

LEGAL ARGUMENT

Trump, whose hard-line stance against illegal immigration helped him win the White House, is emphasizing his policy to drum up support for fellow Republicans in the elections as Americans are sharply divided and grappling with race and national identity.

 

Opinion polls show Democrats have a chance at achieving the net gain of 23 seats they need to win a majority in the House but they have a longer shot at the Senate, where they need a gain of two seats.

 

Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi accused Trump of trying to distract attention from healthcare policy, which Democrats have identified as a top election issue.

 

"President Trump’s new claim he can unilaterally end the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship shows Republicans’ spiralling desperation to distract from their assault on Medicare, Medicaid and people with pre-existing conditions," Pelosi said in a statement.

 

The legal argument espoused by conservative activists for excluding children of illegal immigrants would likely be based around the language in the 14th Amendment that says people born in the United States are citizens if they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

 

Activists seeking to limit immigration, including Michael Anton, who wrote an article on the subject for the Washington Post in July, argue that illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore their children born on U.S. soil should not be U.S. citizens.

 

Most legal scholars say the jurisdiction language denies citizenship only to those who are not bound by U.S. law, such as the children of foreign diplomats.

 

Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute, said that although there is a debate in academic circles among conservatives on whether Congress could legislate on the issue without running afoul of the 14th Amendment, "it's not something that can be done by executive action alone."

 

At least since 2005, Republicans in the U.S. Congress have regularly offered legislation ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States if their parents were in the United States illegally. But the legislation has never advanced, even when the House of Representatives or Senate was under Republican control.

 

Vice President Mike Pence said the plan may not be unconstitutional, telling Politico in an interview that while "we all cherish" the 14th amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on the issue entirely.

 

"But the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th amendment, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally," Pence said.

 

The Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on the issue of whether illegal immigrants can be denied birthright citizenship.

 

In 1898, however, in the case of a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants who lived permanently in the United States, the court ruled that the government could not deny him citizenship.

 

Saikrishna Prakash, a conservative legal scholar at the University of Virginia, said Trump faces long legal odds to ending citizenship as a birthright.

 

"We're a nation of immigrants so if I were to bet I would think the president is going to lose," he said.

 

(Reporting by Susan Heavey and Lawrence Hurley in Washington; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung, Yeganeh Torbati, Lisa Lambert and Richard Cowan in Washington; Writing by Alistair Bell; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe and Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-10-31

[Carib]

Well if he wants to do that he should do it the right way and go back a couple of generations, let's see who is left at the end of that. 

 

 

[mikebike]

Is there no depths to which 45 won't sink?

[sirineou]

 If one didn't know better one would think the  Midterms elections are coming soon and in a panic Trump is throwing out anything but the kitchen sink.

He needs the kitchen sink to color his hair. 

[EVENKEEL]

Chinese flock to USA to give birth to U.S. citizens

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/01/china-usa.

 

You have to be able to see both sides. Is it fair?

[mikebike]

14 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Chinese flock to USA to give birth to U.S. citizens

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/01/china-usa.

 

You have to be able to see both sides. Is it fair?

Which is a great reason for enforcing current immigration law which makes what the Chinese birth-tourists are doing currently illegal. Thanks for that.

[mikebike]

45 better be careful Ivana was not a citizen of the USA when his first 3 kids were born... 

[pgrahmm]

Only 30 countries allow birthright citizenship & some have conditions attached.....

 

The other 200 or so do not......Including here.....

[55Jay]

Well, Trump's timing and gong banging about the border, and now this..... yeah, it's got ulterior motives.  This is nothing new though, he's just more obvious and clumsy about it that previous politician presidents.  MSM is leading articles, "With midterms elections only 40 30 10 2 1 week away, President Trump is  _____________________."    

 

They are almost as ridiculous as he is.

 

On the other hand, he has been banging this gong since the campaign, so it's not like these topics are new.   Some would say he's following through.  Whether you like them, or not, is a different matter. 

 

Personally, I've got no problem with an effort to end the anchor baby welcome mat.  I would also de-couple it from the US Constitution going forward.  Make it a matter of government policy that can be turned on and off as necessary.  The US needs immigrants.  Yes.  With human population on the rise and on the move, the US also needs to be more selective with its Immigration policies.   It can afford to be.  It has every right to be.  Just like any other country can determine its own path without necessarily giving a <deleted> if foreigners are unhappy about it. 

 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Well, Trump's timing and gong banging about the border, and now this..... yeah, it's got ulterior motives.  This is nothing new though, he's just more obvious and clumsy about it that previous politician presidents.  MSM is leading articles, "With midterms elections only 40 30 10 2 1 week away, President Trump is  _____________________."    

 

They are almost as ridiculous as he is.

 

On the other hand, he has been banging this gong since the campaign, so it's not like these topics are new.   Some would say he's following through.  Whether you like them, or not, is a different matter. 

 

Personally, I've got no problem with an effort to end the anchor baby welcome mat.  I would also de-couple it from the US Constitution going forward.  Make it a matter of government policy that can be turned on and off as necessary.  The US needs immigrants.  Yes.  With human population on the rise and on the move, the US also needs to be more selective with its Immigration policies.   It can afford to be.  It has every right to be.  Just like any other country can determine its own path without necessarily giving a <deleted> if foreigners are unhappy about it. 

 

You may not have a problem with it but the Constitution does.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[Credo]

He's going to run into some problems within his own party.   It also has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past.

 

Paul Ryan Rejects Trump’s Claim He Can End Birthright Citizenship

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) made the smallest break from President Donald Trump on Tuesday, rejecting Trump’s recent claim that the president has the power to do away with birthright citizenship.

“Well, you obviously cannot do that,” Ryan said on Kentucky’s WVLK radio station after Trump said he was thinking about signing an executive order to end birthright citizenship. 

“You know, as a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process,” Ryan said.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-ryan-donald-trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order_us_5bd89ed5e4b017e5bfd6b2c7

 

[watcharacters]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

 

Or give me "The Donald"

 

Doubt "The Donald" just listen to him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by watcharacters

[Maestro]

Do I understand correctly that Trump is talking only about children whose mother does not have a valid permission to stay in the USA at the time of birth?

[Credo]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

Chinese flock to USA to give birth to U.S. citizens

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/01/china-usa.

 

You have to be able to see both sides. Is it fair?

And you do realize that as a US citizen, they are subject to US taxes, including on overseas income, just like all other citizens.   

 

[DrDave]

6 minutes ago, Maestro said:

Do I understand correctly that Trump is talking only about children whose mother does not have a valid permission to stay in the USA at the time of birth?

No, he's talking about children born on US soil to parents for which both mother and father are not US citizens. Currently, they're entitled to citizenship just because they happened to be born on US soil.  

[Maestro]

For reference, below is the text of Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the US constitution, of which the reference to "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" is the basis of Trump's initiative:

 

Quote

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed.   Stay on topic.   It's not about a poem. 

 

[bristolboy]

The historical record for the meaning of the 14th Amendment in this regard is clear and unambiguous. This right wing nonsense makes a mockery of their contention that they believe in original intent.

 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/michael-antons-birthright-citizenship-op-ed-in-the-washington-post-is-racist-gobbledygook.html

[suzannegoh]

1 hour ago, Maestro said:

Do I understand correctly that Trump is talking only about children whose mother does not have a valid permission to stay in the USA at the time of birth?

He's not very clear about that but the change could also affect children of parents who are in the US legally but are not citizens.

[suzannegoh]

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

Which is a great reason for enforcing current immigration law which makes what the Chinese birth-tourists are doing currently illegal. Thanks for that.

Are you sure about?  If a non-citizen enters the US on a tourist visa and gives birth to a child while in the US, what law are they breaking?

[kamahele]

So this is nothing but a ploy to get morons to vote for his candidates next Tuesday. He cannot end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution.

[JAG]

3 hours ago, Carib said:

Well if he wants to do that he should do it the right way and go back a couple of generations, let's see who is left at the end of that. 

 

 

Well Mr Trump and his progeny will surely be unaffected, after all any citizenship rights removal cannot apply to white people.

 

A bit like the current surge in restrictions on the ease with which people can vote, or so one reads...

Edited October 31, 2018 by JAG

[Tug]

Just Donald trying to incite his base stir things up and deflect attention away from things like his tax scam throwing people off health care his total lack of empathy on so many levels anyway it’s not in his power to do it by himself 

[nausea]

The pro argument from what I've read:

 

1. Trump could make an executive order that State agencies interpret citizenship law more strictly.
2. This would be legally challenged.
3. It ends up in the Supreme Court.
4. The existing Supreme Court case standing as precedent involved parents who were "legal" immigrants.
5. The Constitution itself states: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and it's argued that illegal immigrants aren't subject to the full jurisdiction of the US.

 

I can see how that might work given a right leaning Supreme Court. 

 

 

 

[DM07]

The only relevant law or part of the constitution seems to be the 2nd!

Everything else?

Well...%$#^ that!

[mikebike]

50 minutes ago, suzannegoh said:

Are you sure about?  If a non-citizen enters the US on a tourist visa and gives birth to a child while in the US, what law are they breaking?

Apparently you didn't bother to read the article in the post I was responding to... would have saved you some typing...

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, nausea said:

The pro argument from what I've read:

 

1. Trump could make an executive order that State agencies interpret citizenship law more strictly.
2. This would be legally challenged.
3. It ends up in the Supreme Court.
4. The existing Supreme Court case standing as precedent involved parents who were "legal" immigrants.
5. The Constitution itself states: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and it's argued that illegal immigrants aren't subject to the full jurisdiction of the US.

 

I can see how that might work given a right leaning Supreme Court. 

 

 

 

The argument about jurisdiction is one about nationality. So it would also apply to the women who come to the United States just to have their children born here. Given that a big big majority of even conservation legal scholars think that the nativist interpretation of the 14 amendment is nonsense. I doubt that even this right wing court would go for it.

[mikebike]

13 minutes ago, nausea said:

The Constitution itself states: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and it's argued that illegal immigrants aren't subject to the full jurisdiction of the US.

It would seem to me that if you can prosecute illegals for crimes and tax them then they ARE subject to the jurisdiction.

[zaphod reborn]

This isn't even an issue.  It requires a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision overturning precedent.  Regardless, Trump has no power over these governmental processes and this he is just drumming up his anti-immigration base.