The Latest:

POTUS Trump changes tactics on ending birthright citizenship and it’s a good thing

(National SentinelIt’s the Law: Earlier this week POTUS Donald Trump triggered the Left (again) when he revealed in an interview with “Axios on HBO” that he was considering ending so-called “birthright citizenship” via executive order.

“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” POTUS said.

But then he added: “You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order.”

And it’s that “act of Congress” bit that now has the president’s attention.

As The Washington Times reported, POTUS has shifted his position somewhat. He remains committed to ending birthright citizenship — the automatic granting of citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to non-citizen or illegal alien parents — but he said he believes going through Congress is a better option.

“I’d rather do it through Congress because that’s permanent,” the president told reporters at the White House.

He said that an executive order is still possible, but he added he believes Congress will take up the issue next year. In fact, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. — who perhaps influenced the president’s thinking? — has already said he will introduce legislation banning the practice.

The Left, along with some RINOs like retiring House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, have insisted that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

But others disagree, saying the original intent behind the post-Civil War amendment was never to grant citizenship to persons in the country illegally, as evidenced by language in Section 1 discussing “jurisdiction.”

The amendment says that persons “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The key question is what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction,” the Times reported.

The paper added:

The Supreme Court ruled in a key 1898 case that includes children of noncitizens in general. While most legal scholars say that decision likely covers births to immigrants who live in the U.S. illegally, but [the] Supreme Court has never ruled squarely on an immigration case.

Still, under current policy, those children are granted citizenship.

Without question, were the president to issue an executive order, it would be challenged and would no doubt wind up before the high court.

That said, POTUS Trump noted there was some precedence regarding the presidential altering of immigration law and policy.

“If [Obama] can do DACA, we can do this by executive order,” he said.

Never miss a story! Sign up for our daily email newsletter — Click here!


3 Comments on POTUS Trump changes tactics on ending birthright citizenship and it’s a good thing

  1. Sharp ShtikSharpShtik // November 2, 2021 at 12:33 am // Reply

    Trump already has a Supreme Court ruling in his favor and a constitutional obligation to “preserve, protect and defend the Const.” by EO or otherwise.

    Supreme Court (in Elk v. Wilkins (1884)) already confirmed the 14th doesn’t grant citizenship based on mere presence in the US, finding that people (e.g. Indians) born in the US are not US citizens when subject to foreign (e.g. tribal) jurisdiction — same situation as any foreigner giving birth in the US — subject to foreign jurisdiction.
    (1) Senator Howard said the 14th “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens. . . . Indians born [in] the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not . . . born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
    (2) Senator Trumbull said, “‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ . . . means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. . . . Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

    • There really is no debate on the actual meaning of the words in the 14th amendment. Those words, and the words of the authors are consistent - citizenship based only on place of birth is not actual law.

      The 1884 ruling you cited I was not aware of, and is also consistent.

  2. U.S. history and legal precedents demonstrate that the U.S. Constitution does not provide automatic acquisition of citizenship to a baby born on U.S. soil; or else, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 would not have been necessary to extend U.S. citizenship specifically to Native American babies born within the territorial limits of the United States. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and the Indian Citizenship Act was enacted in 1924.

    Until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act to specifically include Native American babies born within the United States, citizenship was granted to Native American veterans of World War I and to Native American babies born to at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen.

    Regardless of how activist judges have ruled, the need for enacting the Indian Citizenship Act proves that the 14th Amendment was not written with intent to grant automatic acquisition of citizenship to babies born to non-citizens on U.S. soil and certainly not to babies born to immigration criminals.

Have something to say?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: