Previous post
President Trump has found a new subject to send the Left into paroxysms of hysteria: Birthright Citizenship:
Kristen Welker, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” asked Trump about the issue during an interview that aired Dec. 8.
Welker: “You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one.”
Trump: “Correct.”
Welker: “Is that still your plan?”
Trump: “Yeah. Absolutely.”
Welker: “The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote, ‘All persons born in the United States are citizens.’”
Trump: “Yeah.”
Welker: “Can you get around the 14th Amendment with an executive action?”
Trump: “Well, we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people. But we have to end it. We’re the only country that has it, you know.”
Oy vey. Trump loves to poke Liberals in their tender spots. Every inch of their bodies is a tender spot. It is generally accepted by all Lefties and some others that it is right and proper for a baby of foreign nationals born on U.S. soil to be an automatic U.S. citizen. In the 2010’s, birth tourism was very popular for Chinese parents:
Nobody knows exactly how many Chinese mothers travel to the United States every year to give birth here in order to give their children U.S. citizenship. The federal government doesn’t keep count. Experts who study the phenomenon suggest that the number is in the thousands. Anti-immigration group the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that every year, between 30,000 and 40,000 babies are born in the U.S. to foreign women, mostly from China and Russia.
Agencies in China say the number’s much higher — that more than 50,000 Chinese nationals deliver babies in the United States every year.
Asian birth tourism is still popular. For both Central and South America, it is done, but not as glamorously. We are talking the long trek through Mexico and all the dangers of the cartels. Get that foot on U.S. soil and anchor baby/birthright citizenship:
rump said: “Did you know, if somebody sets a foot – just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two – on our land, congratulations, you are now a citizen of the United States of America.
“Yes, we’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous. We’re the only country that has it, you know. You know we’re the only country that has it.”
Trump here is seemingly describing an outrageous scenario where a woman would give birth to an infant that could have one foot in America and another in another country like Mexico and Canada.
And birthright citizenship is commonly recognised across the Americas, such as in Canada and Mexico, so Trump seemed to forget about his neighbours on that one…
These people do not have a sense of humor AND their Trump Derangement Syndrome is so bad that they don’t realize birthright citizenship is a subject we SHOULD discuss. And, they are flat ignorant.
Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship would mean 4 of his children wouldn't be considered US citizens:
Don Jr – born in 1977
Ivanka – born in 1981
Eric – born in 1984
Ivana – became a US citizen in 1988Barron – born in March 2006
Melania – became a US citizen in July 2006 pic.twitter.com/OpIssJg77t— anyone_want_chips (@anyonewantchips) December 9, 2024
It doesn’t matter if Mexico and Canada have birthright citizenship. We are self-governing. We decide whether we want it. That’s it. Birthright Citizenship came from the 14th Amendment which was ratified to protect the rights of slaves after the Civil War. Since they were not property they were freed men and due the protections of our Constitution. From The Federalist in 2015:
There is increasing interest in repealing birthright citizenship for the children of aliens – especially undocumented persons. According to one recent poll, 49 percent of Americans believe that a child of an illegal alien should not be entitled to U.S. citizenship (41 percent disagree).[2] Legal scholars including Judge Richard Posner contend that birthright citizenship for the children of aliens may be repealed by statute.[3] Members of the current Congress have introduced legislation and held hearings,[4] following bipartisan efforts during the 1990s led by now-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and others.[5]
Even the late Senator Harry Reid knew that birthright citizenship was an incentive for illegal immigration. We have never lived without the protections of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What wouldn’t a parent do to obtain the protections and guarantees of The Constitution? But does Trump have the legal ability to end it? Prolly not:
The short answer repeated by every legal scholar interviewed for this story when asked whether Trump has the power to unilaterally end birthright citizenship: No.
“He doesn’t have that authority, in a legal sense,” said Ediberto Roman, a law professor at Florida International University.
What Trump would attempt to do, via an executive order, “is not changing the meaning (of the 14th Amendment), but rather adopting or putting into effect what he thinks the interpretation should be,” Frost said.
However, Trump — or any president — is unable to repeal any part of the Constitution via executive action, explained Carolina Núńez, a law professor at Brigham Young University and an expert in immigration law and citizenship. “An executive order can’t abolish a constitutional provision, which is what the 14th Amendment is,” Núńez explained. “So certainly, I would imagine that that would be challenged fiercely in court.”
If Trump did an Executive Order, it would be challenged in court unto infinity. Best would be our elected servants initiate a Constitutional Amendment, but they are all sans cojones.
And then there is DACA.
I miss Joe Arpaio’s raids. I find the political phrase “Dreamer” offensive. There are a lot of people with dreams who came here the right way. End Birthright Citizenship with a Constitutional Amendment.
Featured Image: Grok/X/cropped/Public Domain
rbj1 says: Article 1 section 8 “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
I would argue the 14th Amendment was not intended by its drafters to abrogate Congress’s power there. And yes, it has to be a statute, not an executive order.
Chad King says: I’m puzzled by why liberals believe that the courts have the right to limit constitutional rights in some cases (e.g., felons may be prohibited from owning firearms and you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater), but not for birthright citizenship. I agree with rbj1 that a statute would be required (and with Toni that a constitutional amendment would be the best way to handle the issue). But a constitutional amendment would require ratification by 38 states (i.e., 13 blue states could block ratification). And the filibuster will make legislation difficult–unless the Republicans can push it through under reconciliation.
If a citizen’s right to own firearms can be extinguished because he’s a felon, the same reasoning would seem to support the notion even express constitutional rights are subject to limitation and that a person illegally in this country cannot bestow citizenship on his/her offspring. After all, a child who receives stolen property from his/her parent doesn’t have a right to keep it. And it’s hard to believe that at the founding of our country, the notion that an individual illegally in our country could pass along citizenship to a yet-to-be-born child would have been accepted by the founders.
Maybe we should start work on an amendment and see where it goes. Birthright citizenship doesn’t enjoy broad popular support–make the Democrats own the issue.
GWB says: But you’re using logic, derived from natural and common law. That’s not how we do things in this country, anymore. We use Progressivism as our guiding light, instead.
The one thing we would need to do with any constitutional amendment would be to make sure we cover all the bases, and there’s LOTS of opportunities for shenanigans in that.
GWB says: Don Jr – born in 1977
Ivanka – born in 1981
Eric – born in 1984
Ivana – became a US citizen in 1988
Barron – born in March 2006
Melania – became a US citizen in July 2006
But Donald was a citizen all along. Yes, these people are flat-out ignorant.
Birthright Citizenship came from the 14th Amendment
Yes, and NO. It was commonly accepted in the days before we had much of an immigration policy that if you were born here you were rightly a citizen of the USA. But, at that point, travel was arduous enough that people didn’t travel to America just to have a baby. If you were coming here and you were pregnant, you were very likely staying, and went through immigration. I’m not sure if anyone ever tested the idea by giving birth after having been turned away at, say, Ellis Island and waiting for a long boat trip home.
The problem is the 14th Amendment also lays the requirement on of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This is where illegal aliens come in. They are foreigners, and not really subject to the jurisdiction of the US – in the fancy way of talking in the 19th century.
Best would be our elected servants initiate a Constitutional Amendment, but they are all sans cojones.
No need. They just need to pass a law that defines “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as meaning “born to US citizens or legally entered the US on a valid visa extending more than 90 days, to include work visas and other immigrant visas allowing work and domicile within the US.” “Extending more than 90 days” excludes tourist visas. “On a valid visa” excludes all those here illegally. And write in a proviso that those recognized with citizenship under false pretenses will have that citizenship revoked and will be returned to the country of the mother at the first available opportunity.
And then there is DACA.
Yes, an affront to our sovereignty in every way.
Our sovereignty should never bow to people’s feelings, but especially not to those of foreigners who came here with their illegal immigrant parents (or coyotes).
The only right thing to do is shut down our borders entirely until all those who entered illegally (including under un-Constitutional EOs) can all be rounded up and deported. THEN we can re-open legal immigration and manage it in accord with our national (and state) sovereignty.
Remember that moist of those supporting mass immigration to the US are globalists and want to destroy our sovereignty to establish their one world caliphate/utopia.
4 Comments