Axios Trump Interview Gets Everyone Talking About 14th Amendment And #BirthrightCitizenship [VIDEO]

Axios Trump Interview Gets Everyone Talking About 14th Amendment And #BirthrightCitizenship [VIDEO]

Axios Trump Interview Gets Everyone Talking About 14th Amendment And #BirthrightCitizenship [VIDEO]

People are talking about the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and Birthright Citizenship today. Why? Because of a leaked portion of the upcoming Axios HBO interview with President Trump.

Keep in mind, this was only a portion of the full interview. But let’s look at the transcript.

  • “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional 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.”

And right on cue the media pounced.

Lots of others in the media pounced as well, but it’s fun to highlight Jim Acosta’s brave attempts to school the President.

Of course, many are also pointing to the fact that there were several folks in the Trump campaign who made a somewhat similar case during the 2016 election cycle. William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection has an excellent breakdown of this. He specifically points to the discussions and op-eds surrounding the 14th Amendment and the idea of Birthright citizenship.

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

. . . . Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857’s disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

That’s the key right there. The 14th was an issue of states denying citizenship to freed slaves. However, for years now this has been expanded Living Constitution style.

Take a look again at Trump’s response to Swan’s question. Listen carefully. Then read the following:

  • 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 undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status. [Emphasis Added]

Oh well, this could shed a different light on Trump’s remarks. He really could be talking about “anchor babies.” What is an anchor baby? He or she is a child born to someone who is NOT here in the U.S. legally, and who was pregnant before they arrived.

We have caravans of people on the way to the U.S. They are demanding entrance with no questions asked. The caravan has gleefully refused Mexico’s ‘You are Home’ offer. While many of the photos show men or boys, there are women and children in the group. How many women are pregnant? It’s definitely something to consider.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Swan adds this to the story:

There go those leaks and “sources” again! And you’ll see that Trump poked at Swan for the leak and is not amused that someone talked out of school.

U.S. President Donald Trump holds a campaign rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 10, 2018. REUTERS/Leah Millis – RC1D551F58C0

The question is, will Trump actually issue an Executive Order on this? Who knows. However, Axios release of this interview snippet before Sunday’s airing did one thing right. It got us all taking a deeper look at our Constitution and the 14th Amendment. And that’s a good thing.

Feature Photo Credit: REUTERS/Leah Millis

Written by

3 Comments
  • Johnny says:

    Regardless of what it was “intended” for, the 14th Amendment is clear.

    One must be born in the US
    AND
    subject to the jurisdiction (of the US).

    An illegal alien is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
    Go ahead, Mr. President – the SCOTUS will rule in your favor, and then there will be no further discussion/debate possible.

    Winning!

  • GWB says:

    The founders set up the constitution so the president can’t do what he’s proposing to do with birthright citizenship. It’s a stunt, like sending the troops to a border for a non-existent invasion.
    Wow, so he makes a claim in the first sentence, then blatantly lies in the second sentence. And he wonders why people call them “fake news”. *smdh*

    and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
    Funny how progs leave out important bits of the Constitution when explaining it. This phrase, the one about “peaceable assembly” in the First Amendment, the entire Tenth Amendment, etc…….

    point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case
    We really need to get away from the concept that un-constitutionality or constitutionality is conferred only by the dread lords in black robes. It’s constitutional when it’s facially, logically, and by clear language so. The current ideas about precedence are an un-constitutional throwback to the right of kings to make a law permanent and eternal.

    who was pregnant before they arrived
    No. As long as they are in an illegal status, any child (conceived here or elsewhere) born is an “anchor baby”.

    Johnny nails it in his comment: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. This does NOT mean “within the boundaries of, and therefore subject to the laws of” (or the “and a resident” wouldn’t be necessary). It means “to whom you ultimately answer” by virtue of your citizenship. For a Mexican illegally in America, that’s Mexico. For a Guatemalan illegally in America, that’s Guatemala. For a Bangladeshi illegally in America, that’s Bangladesh. And on and on.
    There is actually a legitimate argument that even being here legally makes you still subject to the jurisdiction of your home country, unless you are clearly on a path to citizenship (and even then, maybe).

    The problem is that Congress passed an ambiguous law in carrying out the 14th Amendment. They really should fix that. But, if the law is left ambiguous, then the President – by every standard they’ve used over the last 100 years – has the right and obligation to clarify how it is enforced until such time as Congress makes their will known. (There’s been a LOT of internet talk on this over the last 20+ years.)

    I’m OK with “anchor babies” on one condition: you cut the chain. They are allowed (once they achieve majority and can legally re-enter the US – which will be required) to become US citizens. But they can NEVER, under any circumstances, EVER invoke any sort of familial or associative immigration rights on behalf of anyone else. Period. (Nope, not even a spouse – that person will have to achieve entry into the US on their own status, and work toward citizenship on their own merit.) Oh, and they can NOT have ANY sort of dual citizenship (which should also be eliminated in its entirety).
    (Yes, eliminate welfare, too. But that’s something needed even apart from citizenship reform.)

  • GWB says:

    A good quote from Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich.), who introduced the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Senate:

    [E]very 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.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2890 (1866). Library of Congress, Brady-Handy Photograph Collection.

    Note that many say the second “who” is a modifier of the first “who”, but it pretty clearly reads like a list to me: foreigners, aliens, those who are families of diplomats. The clue to this is the lack of “who are” in front of aliens, making the entire first “who” clause
    who are foreigners, aliens

    (h/t PJ Media’s Live Blog)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram
Instagram did not return a 200.