Don’t think this is legit for him to change but I guess the courts will decide.
“That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works.”
The man never ceases to outrage and disappoint.
I presume that he’ll quietly forget to do this after the election, but in the meanwhile it gets him back into the headlines and trolls the libs, as needed.
Of course, he might make the go, just to be a dick.
It stokes divisions, which is what he wants before the mid-terms. In the politics of division, it’s the largest and most vocal faction that wins. If there’s one thing I never want to hear again, it’s that 2016 was about the plight of the white working class’ economic condition. The race of 2016 was never about economics - it was about culture. It’s about culture now. It’s about a segment of the population that’s used to being at the top of the socioeconomic ladder now feeling like it somehow lost its place at the top of the hierarchy. They vote for Trump because it’s their way to punch their opponents in the face without getting arrested.
He can’t end birthright citizenship. Period. That being said, the COURTS can, by interpreting “subject to the jurisdiction of” differently than current understanding, which is an issue that I believe has not been taken up by the courts.
I COULD see SCOTUS maybe narrowing that clause a little, but I can’t see them ending birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants. I could see them taking it away from children of visitors though, since they are “subject to a foreign power”. But I think even that is unlikely.
Okay, it seems to me that this would be the controlling legal precedent:
So people born to those who have permanent residences here, even if illegally, would be citizens by birth. The “residency” seems to be the thing. But I’m sure people with more knowledge than a guy doing a wikipedia search will weigh in with better analysis.
Personally, I’m somewhat ambivalent toward unrestricted birthright citizenship. However, the Constitution makes it fairly apparent that this citizenship is indeed a birthright for those born in the States.
So he’s trying to make America Grrrr-eat! by fundamentally changing what America is?
I’m not so sure that most Americans would cite birthright citizenship as part of America’s greatness. It’s a legal issue that most Americans probably don’t even know about.
Red meat for the rubes. What the masses (or them asses) don’t realize is that birthright citizenship is pretty much the norm in the Western Hemisphere.
I think the Supremes would shut down such an executive order, probably 8-1 with one of the two sexual predators on the court dissenting.
Kavanaugh is probably personally pro-immigration so maybe Thomas would be the only vote, but then again Thomas is very literalist and originalist, so he’d probably also only seek small restrictions.
And yes, it’s probably just red meat. Trump clearly feels he can tell his voters anything to get them excited, and he could be right. There’s only one thing in this world that Trump understands better than anyone else: what makes his supporters tick.
there are people on the west coast who charge foreigners to help them come to the US just to give birth. The clients are mostly wealthy Chinese. I would imagine they would try to shut that down if they can find a crime to charge them with.
But I think a majority of Americans feel it is one of our core values.
Trump is wrong, as usual, about the US being the only country with birthright citizenship, but it’s not at all unusual for countries to not have it. And Trump has been calling for a change for some time now. Maybe this is the first time he’s claimed he can change it himself, but I doubt he’ll try. More likely, this is pre-election rhetoric to gin up the base. Trump doesn’t consider himself to be the president of all Americans-- only those who support him.
He’s the President, and the Constitution isn’t. So there!
It’s so weird to look at a court case from 1898 and think, “Oh how I long for the less racist times when people of color were not excluded from this country in contravention of the law…”
If the “illegals” were no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the US, wouldn’t that mean that they all would be untouchable by the law, and that they all effectively have diplomatic immunity?
My feelings are that it made total sense in the 18th, 19th and first 2/3ds of the 20th century, but in today’s world, it probably causes more issues than it solves, and an amendment to tighten it up might be warranted.
That said, Trump is either a total idiot and is totally unaware that he can’t actually do this via executive order, or he’s just blowing the rhetorical equivalent of a hot fart at us with it just to get a reaction.
Yes and no. From the wikipedia article:
It appears that the phrasing was meant to mean “in contrast to someone subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power”, and a distinction might be made between someone who is born to a foreign diplomat here vs someone simply here illegally (or legally here, but not a diplomat). AFAIK, there is no doctrine to establish the idea that non-diplomats are “untouchable by US law”. Someone who is a tourist here and who commits a crime is subject to US law.
That was my thinking, Fiveyearlurker.
Though I guess it fits with the general policy of “do everything opposite of Obama”. Obama focused ICE’s resources on immigrants who committed serious crimes, and the Republicans hated that. So now they want to make immigrant criminals immune to prosecution.