Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

[workinclasszero]

Jonathan Swan, Stef W. Kight 2 hours ago

President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. A desperate Hail Mary that would almost certainly fail in the courts.

Although with Justice Date Rape on the court now, it’s a little bit harder.

[workinclasszero]

3. Trump has at least two locked in yes votes on SCOTUS for any abomination of his choosing

But it's the racist optics right before the midterms he's really after.

[vi5]

4. Two? Two?

Do you honestly see ANY of the Republican appointed judges going against a Republican president?

[workinclasszero]

6. I'm just saying he has a lock on two no matter the question

[whopis01]

2. That isn't going to work out well.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

That Consitution is a pesky little thing...

[LuvNewcastle]

14. Yes, I really don't see how any court would uphold

such an executive order in clear violation of the Constitution. Even RW judges would have to strike that down.

[spanone]

5. this guy is a total piece of shit

[VMA131Marine]

7. SCOTUS has already ruled on this... in 1898

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

[Amishman]

12. They might use that ruling as the basis as there is a wrinkle

The majority ruling in that case interpreted the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as being required to obey the laws of the United States. I see potential to try and weasel an argument that this does not apply to those in the country without authorization as their presence is in noncompliance with US law.

I don't agree with this, but I can see the gap they might try to exploit

[treestar]

16. Subject to the jurisdiction

is what they could hang onto, but there is a double-edged sword for the right-wingers. It would make illegal aliens like diplomats - they could not be tried for any crimes either.

The lack of practicality would play in too. Every US citizen would need to apply for a passport at birth in order to prove their parents were legally in the U.S. just in order to be able to go forward.

US citizens would wind up marrying illegal aliens in greater numbers.

There could be an eventual majority of illegal aliens. Uneducated illegal aliens.

None of that sounds like anything desirable for the country in the long run.

There would be no effort to deport them. Some countries would not take them. But even so, they would remain to be exploited for their labor.

[demmiblue]

8. This is all about getting the deplorables to the polls. n/t

[Andy823]

15. Exactly

And it will work, for his deplorable that is, they believe anything he says. It's just more bluster from a windbag that makes up shit as he goes.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Why not a headline, "Trump to Tear Up Constitution"?

[workinclasszero]

11. Republicans are pro-Constitution and deficit hawks when not in power

When they are in power they blow up the deficit on behalf of the rich and big business spending $$$ like drunken sailors and use the constitution for toilet paper daily!

[TheBlackAdder]

10. Does that include all the Russians why fly in and stay at his Florida condo units to give birth?

[Bettie]

13. I'm guessing it doesn't

because he can't stand to lose a penny of his own revenue. He'll just write "presidential" exceptions to them.

Oh, I can not even express how much I despise this horrible thing and his many enablers.

[treestar]

17. Probably not because they will be allowed to enter legally

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark holds that if born of parents legally here (in effect, because the parents in that case were legally here, and in 1898 there was no concept of illegal aliens) then the person is a citizen.