Trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizenship

 

U.S. President Donald Trump waves as he boards Air Force One to return to Washington from Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey U.S. August 18, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that his administration was seriously looking at ending the right of citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens and people who immigrated to the United States illegally.

 

"We're looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby - congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen. ... It's frankly ridiculous," Trump told reporters outside the White House.

 

Trump has made cracking down on immigration a central plank of his presidency and re-election campaign, but many of the administration's sweeping rule changes and executive orders have been stymied by the courts.

 

U.S. Donald Trump on Wednesday said he was 'seriously' looking at ending the right of citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens and people who immigrated to the United States illegally. Trump's comments come after his administration unveiled a rule that allows officials to detain migrant families indefinitely while judges consider whether to grant them asylum in the United States, eliminating a previous 20-day limit. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).

After his administration announced a rule to detain migrant families indefinitely while they await possible asylum, U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he was 'seriously' looking at ending birthright citizenship.

"We're looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby - congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen. ... It's frankly ridiculous," Trump told reporters outside the White House.

Trump has made cracking down on immigration a central plank of his presidency and re-election campaign, but many of the administration's sweeping rule changes and executive orders have been stymied by the courts.

The Republican president had told Axios news website in October 2018 that he would end "birthright citizenship" through an executive order. Experts have said such a move would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution's 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to ensure that black Americans had full citizenship rights, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States."

It has since routinely been interpreted to grant citizenship to most people born in the United States, whether or not their parents are American citizens or legally living in the United States.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration unveiled a rule that allows officials to detain migrant families indefinitely while judges consider whether to grant them asylum in the United States, eliminating a previous 20-day limit.

The rule, which is certain to draw a legal challenge, would replace a 1997 court settlement that limits the amount of time U.S. immigration authorities can detain migrant children. That agreement is generally interpreted as meaning families must be released within 20 days.

It was the administration's third major regulation restricting immigration in little more than a month, all during an unsettled period when senior immigration officials hold "acting" titles lacking U.S. Senate confirmation.

 

The Republican president had told Axios news website in October 2018 that he would end "birthright citizenship" through an executive order. Experts have said such a move would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Constitution's 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War to ensure that black Americans had full citizenship rights, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States."

 

It has since routinely been interpreted to grant citizenship to most people born in the United States, whether or not their parents are American citizens or legally living in the United States.

 

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Writing by Makini Brice; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Jonathan Oatis)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

And he's absolutely right, yet again. Birthright citizenship scheme has been so abused there is no option but to get rid of it. Blame those that abused it, and those that aided them in doing so, rather than Trump who finally applies common sense to a long festering problem.

Bye-bye Barron!

 

 

More red meat for the racists and white supremacists in his base.

 

And another nail in the coffin of his post El Passo speech.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More red meat for the racists and white supremacists in his base.

 

I guess you feel the same way in regards to Thailand where there is no birthright either?

Good luck trying to change the 14th amendment.  If any amendment is outdated, it's the 2nd.  But no, we can't mess with the Constitution! 

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Good luck trying to change the 14th amendment.  If any amendment is outdated, it's the 2nd.  But no, we can't mess with the Constitution! 

 

If any amendment is more valid today than it’s ever been in the history of the United States- it’s the 2nd. 

I don't agree with all that trump does but this to me seems perfectly reasonable; not least because of the number of wealthy non US women arriving as  (heavily pregnant & further advanced than admitted if indeed they admitted it at all) 'Tourists' in order to deliberately exploit this loophole.

13 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

If any amendment is more valid today than it’s ever been in the history of the United States- it’s the 2nd. 

Oh, never mind.  ????

Edited August 22, 20196 yr by ricklev

13 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

If any amendment is more valid today than it’s ever been in the history of the United States- it’s the 2nd. 

Agreed. US number 1 in the world for mass shootings. MAGA!

22 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

If any amendment is more valid today than it’s ever been in the history of the United States- it’s the 2nd. 

Yes, I'm sure the thousands of dead Americans from gun violence agree with you.  Wonder how many Americans have died because of the 14th amendment? 

Trump will win AGAIN in 2020.

 

 

 

Need a constitutional amendment for that. There are valid pro and con arguments on this. It's a basic American value but on the other hand it has been abused alot. I also see this as a political ploy by 45 for 2020. He can't actually do it by order but his base will love yet another divisive fight.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Not often I agree with anything that man has to say, but I believe the automatic right to citizenship because a baby was born inside the border has little relevance in this day of mass travel and border hopping.

 

Australia changed it's citizenship act about 1986 to state babies born there get the same status as their parents. If both parents are illegal, baby is too. If just one parent has PR, baby is a citizen.

This came about because increasing numbers of pregnant woman, from many countries, were flying in to give birth to an Australian. Hong Kong residents were forefront in the scheme at the time because many saw this as a backup in case the return to China went bad.(!) 

I'll be interested to see how  Trump goes about repealing the 14th Amendment

Edited August 25, 20196 yr by Scott

20 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

Not often I agree with anything that man has to say, but I believe the automatic right to citizenship because a baby was born inside the border has little relevance in this day of mass travel and border hopping.

 

Australia changed it's citizenship act about 1986 to state babies born there get the same status as their parents. If both parents are illegal, baby is too. If just one parent has PR, baby is a citizen.

This came about because increasing numbers of pregnant woman, from many countries, were flying in to give birth to an Australian. Hong Kong residents were forefront in the scheme at the time because many saw this as a backup in case the return to China went bad.(!) 

Australia's law is a bit more nuanced than this.

 

Anyone who is born in Australia and doesn't receive citizenship at birth, automatically becomes an Australian citizen at age 10 so long as they have been regularly resident there for the duration. Fair enough too I think, if you've grown up there (something beyond your control or choosing) and its the only place you know, then citizenship should be afforded to you by such a mechanism.

Edited August 22, 20196 yr by samran

2 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

And he's absolutely right, yet again. Birthright citizenship scheme has been so abused there is no option but to get rid of it. Blame those that abused it, and those that aided them in doing so, rather than Trump who finally applies common sense to a long festering problem.

And to hell with the Courts and the Constitution!

where will six month pregnant women have to fly to if this happens?, Chinese have been at it for years.

That’s our Donald lol a distraction perhaps don’t think it’s gonna fly imo it’s just another pathetic distraction 

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And to hell with the Courts and the Constitution!

...that is only a valid argument if you are defending the 2nd amendment. Every other amendment is fair game. ????

i knew a dr who would fly his wife to US to give birth

whenever they had a child.

guessing mostly for the lulz factor that the kids could be potus should they feel like it

I'll be interested to see how 'Jesus' Trump goes about repealing the 14th Amendment

Yes it's confirmed. He is the chosen one. He said it himself!

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

That’s our Donald lol a distraction perhaps don’t think it’s gonna fly imo it’s just another pathetic distraction 

If there isn't a new one every few days he'd be afraid of losing his control over the news cycle. He's an amazing propagandist but an amazingly horrible president.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

actually he doesn't need to change the 14th... it states the baby is not a citizen if parents are diplomats OR illegals... so the long custom of citizenship for all babies is unconstitutional.

 

1 hour ago, samran said:

Australia's law is a bit more nuanced than this.

 

Anyone who is born in Australia and doesn't receive citizenship at birth, automatically becomes an Australian citizen at age 10 so long as they have been regularly resident there for the duration. Fair enough too I think, if you've grown up there (something beyond your control or choosing) and its the only place you know, then citizenship should be afforded to you by such a mechanism.

Yes, but it is difficult to live for 10 years in the country without becoming illegal. If illegal, the chance of being caught and deported before the 10 years is always there.

There was a bill before parliament to preclude anyone from this clause if they had become illegal at any time even if they were there for 10 years. I don't think that bill has proceded.

Interestingly, in 1996, I was involved in what had to be the first case of absorbed persons (they were twins) after the 1986 amendments . They were born in Australia to illegal parents and were just shy of their 10th birthday when Immigration knocked on their door. We managed to delay proceedings long enough for them to get to their birthday, they became citizens automatically, and later sponsored their parents.

 

6 minutes ago, daoyai said:

actually he doesn't need to change the 14th... it states the baby is not a citizen if parents are diplomats OR illegals... so the long custom of citizenship for all babies is unconstitutional.

 

You're right about diplomats. Wrong about "illegals".

"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."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to diplomats. Since they enjoy diplomatic immunity, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

                          For example this one Donny????

 

Interesting coming from a nation of immigrants (except native Americans)

1 minute ago, PiBret said:

You seem irrationally anti-45. Quite simple, don't vote for him and blame his win on some stupid reason, like you snowflakes did the last time. Democracy my friend.

You have anything to say on the topic at hand, or only on other posters?

Reported Troll  comment removed.