We're all COMPSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS!!

Trump backs off executive order threat, says Congress is better path to end birthright citizenship

President Trump said Wednesday he’s still committed to ending birthright citizenship for babies born to immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, but would prefer to go through Congress rather than use an executive order.

That’s a softening of his stance from an interview published Tuesday, where he told Axios, an online political outlet, that he was preparing an executive order to test the boundaries of the Constitution’s definitions of automatic citizenship.

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

He said he still thinks an executive order possible, but said in a series of tweets that he now expects to push Congress to act on legislation next year.

The president’s suggestion of upending over a century of policy and withholding automatic American citizenship from babies born to some immigrants sent shock waves through the political world this week.

Most lawmakers who spoke on the matter dismissed Mr. Trump’s suggestion out of hand, questioning his grasp of the Constitution and politics.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan was one of those, saying the president would be wrong to use an executive order — exactly the kind of thing Mr. Trump and Republicans chided President Obama for doing — and wrong to say the Constitution isn’t settled on the question of birthright citizenship.

Others were harsher, calling the president racist for targeting what he said was part of a broader problem of illegal immigration.

But not everyone was dismissive.

Sen. Joe Donnelly, an Indiana Democrat in a tight re-election race, said he was open to legislation.

Mr. Trump lashed out at Mr. Ryan, telling him he “knows nothing about” the issue and urging him to focus on the midterm elections rather than clashing with the White House.

“Our new Republican majority will work on this,” the president vowed, again signaling congressional action instead of an executive order.

The 14th Amendment assigns automatic citizenship to those born “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 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 Supreme Court has never ruled squarely on an immigration case.

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

A number of bills have been introduced in Congress over the years to reverse that policy for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally but none have passed. Were one to clear Congress and be signed into law, it would create a test for the Supreme Court.

Mr. Trump, though, is the first president to suggest attacking the issue himself through an executive order, which is far less powerful than a law.

The president acknowledged it was a weaker strategy, saying Wednesday that a future president could easily overturn it, as he himself has done to some of Mr. Obama’s executive actions.

Still, Mr. Trump had some admiration for Mr. Obama. “If he can do DACA, we can do this by executive order,” he said.

That’s markedly different than during the 2016 campaign, when Mr. Trump called Mr. Obama’s DACA policy for “Dreamers” and a similar plan for parents “illegal executive amnesties.” He said Mr. Obama “defied federal law and the Constitution” in issuing them.

Mr. Trump on Wednesday pointed to former Sen. Harry Reid, the one-time Democratic Party floor leader, who in 1993 called for ending birthright citizenship as part of a crackdown on immigrants who live in the U.S. illegally.

“Harry Reid, when he was sane, agreed with us on birthright citizenship!” the president tweeted.


https://www.washingtontimes.co...thright-citizenship/

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:...
President Trump said Wednesday he’s still committed to ending birthright citizenship for babies born to immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, but would prefer to go through Congress rather than use an executive order...

Shocked. But, it would have be fun to watch and would have been a topic for debate for the next 200 years in Constitutional Law circles.

Trump is not the first president to (contemplate) pushing the boundaries of Executive Orders. Presidents, for the most part, love them. They can do stuff without all that congressional mess, they win some, and lose some (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer)

I'm reading this as:

Give me a Republican Congress and Senate and we'll make this happen.

quote:

Originally posted by olfuzzy:
I'm reading this as:

Give me a Republican Congress and Senate and we'll make this happen.

I agree- this is far from over, and doing it the right way (amending the Constitution) has a much better chance at permanency.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:
...and it's not maintaining a dogmatic approach to ... the sanctity of the Constitution.

Your CUT is good advice...

I know it's fashionable to trot out the slippery slope concern every time conservatives appear poised to finally make some sort of decisive action, but honestly, the mountain that slope is on fell in a long time ago. Other posters have used the 2nd Amendment as an example. Does it appear that the liberals have been waiting for some mythical slippery slope before acting against the 2nd Amendment? Did they go through the process of changing the 2nd Amendment before legislating against it? One need only look at California, Chicago, D.C., New York, Massachusetts, etc. to realize, no, they weren't waiting for some bold move from the right to open the door of political opportunity, they didn't go through the appropriate channels to change the 2nd Amendment, they simply chose to ignore it outright. The gun laws California has enacted are every bit as illegitimate as some claim Trump's threat of executive order is--the difference being, Trump's method at least involved a semi-official channel of execution.

The right would rather maintain the moral high ground than win, and it's costing us.

There’s money being made on it..

“Benefits of Giving Birth in the United States of America with Doctores Para TISM


U.S. Citizenship for your child

Having your baby in the United States/Birthright Citizenship jus soli is a right guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment of The U.S. Constitution. Doctores Para TiSM provides maternity care to women who enter the United States of America with proper documentation.


The opportunity of a high quality education

The United States of America is home to some of the world’s most prestigious universities and U.S. Citizens have the right to apply for federal student aid, which provides access to scholarships, grants and other financial aid programs to help pay for the rising costs of higher education.


Security to apply for permanent U.S. residency for your family

After the age of 21, U.S. Citizens can sponsor parents, spouse and minor children to live with them in the U.S. (Immigration Act IR-5).”


https://doctoresparati.com/home.html

November 2, 2018
The 'Right' to Birthright Citizenship

On October 30, Axios posted “Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order.” The post included a one-minute-eight-second video of Jonathan Swan interviewing President Trump about using an executive order to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.

Using an executive order may be effective in dealing with immediate problems, like the caravans wending their way to the border; for instance, Pres. Trump might have a pause in accepting asylum applications. But any executive order can be undone by the next president with his own EO. Also, some progressive judge might decide to disallow an EO on birthright citizenship, just as was done with the president’s travel ban.

Pres. Trump surely knows this. Perhaps Trump’s reasoning is to get Congress off its duff to deal with this issue. A more lasting remedy is legislation. But some think that the only route is that of a constitutional amendment, and that’s a long hard slog, fraught with difficulty.

So-called birthright citizenship comes to us from the 14th Amendment, and the problem is contained in its very first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Those who believe the 14th does not grant citizenship to the children of illegals, tourists, foreign embassy staff, and other foreign nationals, hang their hat on the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which they back up with the speeches and debates given by the drafters of that clause. The original intent and purpose of the 14th was to guarantee citizenship for the recently emancipated slaves, not the children of lawbreaking foreigners 150 years in the future.

Regardless of whether the government’s current practice of granting citizenship to the spawn of any foreigner who scrambles across our poorly-defended borders sticks in your craw or not, you need to watch Tucker Carlson’s brilliant Oct. 30 monologue: “Birthright citizenship is a scam.” I highly recommend that you click and listen to Tucker’s compelling take on this issue.

Tucker Carlson: Birthright citizenship is a scam. There is no other word for it:


Also on the 30th in “When Birthright Goes Wrong,” Laura Ingraham dilated on the federal government’s pathetic policy on birthright citizenship. (It seems that all the big brains in cable news are at Fox.)

Mr. Carlson also talked with Michael Anton on the Oct. 30 program, and he referred to a zesty little article by Anton in the Washington Post last July that supposedly created a bit of a stir. Anton claimed that the framers of the 14th Amendment, as well as America’s founders, understood “that birthright citizenship is inherently self-contradictory.” Anton cited Edward Erler. Here’s another article by Erler that Imprimis ran in 2008: “Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny.”

The issue of birthright citizenship arose in the presidential campaign in the summer of 2015. I chimed in on it myself with a few articles, including “Anchor This!” If an Article V constitutional convention ever were mounted, at the top of the agenda should be clarifying what “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means, and then set that meaning in stone.

If the plebiscite, i.e. referendum, were available in federal elections, such as the U.K. conducted in its Brexit election, and the question of birthright citizenship for the children of foreigners were put to the people, one would hope that the folks would have the sense to end it. But people who don’t pay taxes don’t care what things cost, and about half of Americans don’t pay income taxes.

Unchecked caravans of foreign invaders coming to America should remind Americans of the caravans of Syrians and others that invaded Europe in 2015. Many Europeans now think that allowing them entry was a huge mistake. But American progressives want to be just like sophisticated Europe.

Regardless of what the problem clause in the 14th Amendment actually means, the question for Americans is: do we want open borders and unchecked invasion? Birthright citizenship is a magnet to invade America. We need to destroy the magnets and we need to create disincentives to invasion, such as putting invaders in chain-gangs to clean up the deserts they’ve defiled with trash. Maybe we should make them work on the wall, too.

In the closing days of these midterm campaigns, birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens should be a burning issue. Candidates who want to continue with the current interpretation of the 14th, or who refuse to say whether they’d vote to change it, should not get your vote.

Americans are a bunch of patsies to have accepted the reigning interpretation of the 14th for so long. The decades-long, ongoing invasion and settlement of foreign nationals is costing American citizens a fortune, and not just in the pocketbook: America’s very culture is being changed -- and against our will.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...p.html#ixzz5VhwElT1u