Trump says it is “In the process. It will happen”
Don’t think the timing of this was random. The President is looking to get record turnout from his hard core base. These are the people who wholeheartedly supported him from the moment he came down the escalator (or earlier). Hard to estimate their actual number but getting 80% or more to the polls could make the difference.
I would love to see the “anchor baby” nonsense ended, but it’s going to be tough slog giving it’s part of the constitution, the 14th amendment. The amendment was passed with the freed slaves in mind, but it resulted in consequences that I am sure those who supported it back the day, never foresaw.
Actually untrue. It’s NOT “part of the Constitution” and never was. The 14th Amendment was INTENDED (remember the concept of “legislative intent?”) to apply ONLY to former slaves. Secondly, those here illegally (or legally, for that matter) are NOT “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. They are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their HOME COUNTRIES…those countries of which they are CITIZENS. The left has been MISinterpreting that part of the 14th for decades now.
The 14th Amendment does not establish birthright citizenship, that concept was introduced in the 1960s (I think); the “rule” was claimed to be legitimate based on the 14th Amendment but as Dave said it was never intended for perpetuity and no court rulings have ever endorsed the idea that birthright citizenship is a Constitutional plank.
Trump can change the rule and so can Congress, it is well within the defined powers of the Federal Government.
And its about time!
It’s true that the president cannot change the 14th amendment with an executive order.
The executive order will be to change how the USCIS processes new citizens.
This will inevitably be challenged in court within days. The lower courts will rule against it, and say the president has no such authority. It will then make it to the Supreme Court, where they will decide if there even IS such a provision to the 14th amendment. So far, birthright citizenship defined as “born on US soil to unaffiliated foreign parents” has never been ruled on by the court.
They’ve ruled on peripheral issues, like people who have lived and worked here for decades and had children while not officially citizens. But they have not ruled on people engaged in the criminal act of illegal border crossing and plopping out a baby.
So while he can’t change anything about the amendment, he can force the USSC to explicitly rule on it.
Paul Ryan, stooge of the donor class, disagrees:
you cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order
I’m sure his golden parachute is already in place. His dreams of a presidential run are as absurd as Flake’s or Corker’s. He couldn’t win a race for the outhouse.
Kevin McCarthy is no better. Jim Jordan needs to be the next Speaker.
He doesn’t have one; if you become the speaker, it’s generally recognized you won’t have a future in the White House. The position is just too toxic.
Birthright citizenship and the cottage industry that has grown up around it - birthing tourism (wealthy foreigners coming to America to give birth and automatic citizenship to their baby) - is simply INSANE.
An executive order or legislation to end this ridiculous practice will, at the very minimum, bring the topic to the attention of the voters. It is reported that approx. 275,000 births a year by foreign nationals occur in the US.
That said, should Trump or the legislature act on eliminating the practice, the matter will not end there - without doubt it will end up being argued in front of the Supreme Court. The clause, “Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, referring to the parents of the child, will be the language fought over.
As usual, Paul Ryan and the “establishment Right” have given up before the fight over this issue even starts.
Here is a list of the most recent House Speakers:
The only person on this list who has or had any statesman-like qualities is Newt Gingrich. The rest are all political hacks who were or are masters at butt kissing and kicking. No one of them could be “presidential timber.” That’s why House Speakers don’t become presidents. The job has not attracted the best leaders.
I used to respect Paul Ryan, but he turned out to be nothing but a sorehead, “never Trump” Republican who could not put aside the fact that most of the Republicans of his mindset are losers. They will never do anything the alter, slow down, stem or reverse the leftward drift of this country, because they want to get rich and powerful from the system. It is well that Paul Ryan decided not to run again because he is a man of the past.
I have to ask; was that a reputation they earned before, or during their tenure as Speaker?
The entire role of the Speaker is alliance & consensus building. It’s dirty work, and you’re likely doing things you, in any other position, wouldn’t.
Ryan didn’t want the job; he knew what it would be asking of him. But he took it because he realized, at the time, no one else could really do it.
Consensus building, indeed, that must be why he slams the President every chance he gets. He can never put his divisiveness aside and STFU.
I don’t think there’s much about being in Congress that precludes you from being elected president. It’s just that Congress is a less powerful body, and you have a low profile. If you have enough gravitas to become president, you’re unlikely to spend 10+ years in Congress. You probably already moved onto a more visible post like Senator or Governor.
We have a winner…
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment speaks to citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was suggested in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War (and perhaps was in response to American Indian issues too). The amendment was acidly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were compelled to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress.
Minds much greater than mine have litigated this 14ᵗʰ business for over a hundred years, and the only conclusion one can reach at this point is that the issue is anything but settled. It is not as clear cut as some make it out to be.
I agree with those here that say SCOTUS will have to put this to bed once and for all. I also agree that Trump trying to do this by Executive Order will start the litigation ball rolling.
Oh . . . one more thing.
I think this birthright nonsense is just that . . . NONSENSE. Get rid of it, and that will do a lot to slow illegal immigration. I mean, people come here to give birth. Eliminate that incentive, and you’ll reduce illegal immigration.
Where things will get contentious is over the retroactive application of the law. I have a hunch this will be the backbone of the argument to continue doing things as they are now.
Because they will say “We’ve been granting it this way up until now, and unless you revoke previously granted citizenship - then it is unjust to treat people born on June 07 2019 differently than people born June 08 2019”.
I think this argument will be most persuasive with justice Roberts and Alito. They’ve cited similar operating continuance as justification for rulings in the past. Neither are strict constructionist, so the modern day influences their thinking.
Actually, BobJam, American Indians were NOT part of the intent of the 14th. Several years later, the SCOTUS ruled that an American Indian was NOT a U.S. citizen, but a tribal citizen instead, even though he was born in the U.S. It took a special act of Congress (in the early 20’s, if I recall correctly) to grant American citizenship to all Native Americans. That lends credence to the idea that the 14th was SPECIFICALLY intended to grant citizenship ONLY to former slaves as conservatives have maintained all along.
You may well be right CWolf, but just because the government has MISapplied the 14th Amendment in the past, does NOT mean that those misapplications should now be “certified” after the fact. My “feelings” about it is we should issue an apology to those misconstrued to be citizens and then ship them and their families back where they belong–including all of those extended family members who entered via chain migration.
There would be no retroactive removal of citizenship if birthright citizenship is ended because nobody has claimed that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, it is simply a rule that we adopted which was a stupid idea and now we are going to remove the stupid rule.
The objectors will attempt to say the Constitution demands that the stupid rule remain just like they claim the constitution demands legal baby killing but when they lose there will be no basis for nullifying the previous birthright citizens standing.