Trump reportedly plans to sign an executive order to terminate birthright citizenship

[nitpicker]

Source: CNBC

President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios.

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 Monday in an exclusive interview for a documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report, adding that the move would also likely lead to another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.
(snip)

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/trump-plans-to-terminate-birthright-citizenship.html

[sakabatou]

1. Another constitutional crisis?!

[Maggiemayhem]

39. Another distraction before the election

[YessirAtsaFact]

87. Yep

[nitpicker]

2. So if two green-carders have a baby

That would be a non-citizen??

Or if the female is not a citizen but has a citizen spouse, what would be the status of their child?

Court battles foreseen.

[MosheFeingold]

45. The law

Per an old case is two green card holders = citizen because they have agreed to live under the laws of the USA.

Mere birth by two unlawful people in the USA has not been decided.

[Honeycombe8]

54. I guess green carders, not being citizens, can't give birth to a U S citizen.

I think green carders' babies are automatically citizens of their own country, aren't they? Many U S citizens hold dual citizenship.

[treestar]

86. If they are legally here

US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 holds they are citizens. That case doesn't address the idea of the parents not being here legally or not, since the concept didn't exist then.

Still it could not be done by EO I would think. The POTUS surely cannot decide that by himself.

[woundedkarma]

3. Wow.. what a crazy big distraction...

Something gigantic must be happening soon. Like an election or something.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. My thought exactly... the act of a desperate racist.

[Scarsdale]

4. No doubt there will be

exceptions for the rich Russian wives who fly to Miami to give birth to American citizens? How about the Chinese who go to California for that reason? This will only apply to brown people, no doubt.

[sarge43]

18. Like Colin Powel? n/t

[Maggiemayhem]

35. I immediately thought about the Russian women who come here to have babies

[NewJeffCT]

57. A friend of mine worked as a translator

for Chinese film director Chen Kaige (Farewell my Concubine, the Emperor & the Assassin, etc) and his wife actress Chen Hong when they came to the US to have their son. Not sure of the exact date, but could have been in the late 90s until maybe 2000/01 as that's when she was in grad school out in California. Not sure if they were looking for the son to have US citizenship or to avoid China's 1 Child Policy, or maybe both.

[barbtries]

5. he says he can,

but can he in reality? I find that hard to believe.

[dsc]

15. there are some far right whack a doos who argue that

under the jurisdiction of the US doesn't apply to non citizens children. But all of the people who wrote that amendment and ratified it were clear that meant to exclude the children of ambassadors and other employees of foreign embassies.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. No he cannot. nt

[zipplewrath]

69. It isn't clear

As others have pointed out, the courts haven't weighed in on the narrow definition to which he refers. Currently, the State Department is empowered with issuing passports. The USCIS controls the granting of citizenship. That gives Trump paths to executing the order. After that, it becomes an issue of constitutionality. The constitution gives the congress the power to define citizenship.

All babies born in the United States—except those born to enemy aliens in wartime or the children of foreign diplomats—enjoy U.S. citizenship under the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.[42] The amendment states: "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."[43] There remains dispute as to who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth.[44]

"...and subject to the jurisdiction of..." is going to be the key phrase here. I personally think that any rational supreme court well tell him this is a congressional decision. But then there is THIS supreme court.

[BumRushDaShow]

78. Someone cited an 1898 case where a passport was revoked from a U.S. born Chinese individual

who visited China and returned to have his U.S. passport revoked....and I believe the ruling was 6-2.

I really doubt they are ready to "go there" at this point in history.

[ginnyinWI]

49. "he says" should be translated as, "he lies".

Just because he says it, and maybe especially because he says it, doesn't mean it is true.

I don't believe it and I don't believe the troops being sent there until I actually see it.

Mid term lies. "It doesn't matter, we won" he said of the presidential election to Leslie Stahl.

[barbtries]

53. i believe the troops are being sent to the border.

but I don't believe he can change the constitution with an executive order.

[allgood33]

6. Oh, my! Is he going to waiver the Russian women coming here to have their anchor babies?

Unless Putin has made a deal, some of Trump's properties will lose money if this passes?

https://theweek.com/speedreads/748344/russian-birth-tourists-are-flocking-miami-trump-condos-give-birth-american-citizens

[flyingfysh]

7. He can't overrule the Constitution!

Isn't that covered by the 14th amendment?

[christx30]

42. He can't be allowed to get away with this.

If the president can just alter parts of the constitution willy-nilly, what’s the point of having it? It should take no less than a convention of the states to alter Amendments. But if one person can change the 14th, who’s to stop him from changing the 1st?

[MosheFeingold]

62. Not exactly

The constitution provides that people “under the flag” (or words to that effect) of the USA could have a us citizen child.

The seminal case involved two legal green card holding Chinese immigrants.

Birth by mere tourists or persons here illegally are expressly fair game.

That said, I thought this was addressed by statute

[BumRushDaShow]

8. That will be thrown out so quick that heads will spin.

This would REVOKE Marco Rubio's and John Sununu's citizenship!

[underpants]

9. Unlesss there's a grandfather clause.

Yes this will get thrown out very quickly

[BumRushDaShow]

10. 14th Amendment

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Edit to add - THIS section of the same 14th Amendment needs to be invoked post haste!

Amendment XIV

<...>

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

[johnnyfins]

13. And who will throw it out? The Supreme Court? The "Stacked" Supreme Court?

This is a a bigger problem when you think about it. It becomes about the porwer of the POTUS 's executive orders.
What a mess this guy has made.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Um no they are going to throw out a clear violation of the 14th Amendment

If anything, a pile of elected GOPers would suddenly no longer be citizens - like Marco Rubio.

And as a note, a significant number of E.O.'s from the thing in WH have already been thrown out. The so-called "stacked court" is not "stacked" because Kavanaugh was merely replacing another "conservative" (Kennedy) who generally voted along with other conservatives on the court and was occasionally a "swing vote" but only occasionally. I.e., the "5-4" (conservative) decisions from the past will merely continue. We only had a brief break to have 4-4 ties.

[underpants]

19. Obama

Was his father a citizen? I can't find in the article if Trump's whacko idea has to be both parents. Don't think this isn't a shot at Obama too.

[BumRushDaShow]

22. Joe Madison had a caller and had a brief discussion about it

and how this was probably a shot at him among others. Obama's father was not a citizen but his mother was and Obama was born in the U.S. There is literally NOTHING in the 14th Amendment language, which is pretty clear, about the status "both parents". It says that if someone is born or naturalized in the U.S. then they are citizens.

But what people fail to realize is that an Executive Order is not a "law". It is merely a formalized directive for how the E.O.'s covered Executive Branch agencies should be carrying out existing laws.

[DFW]

26. His dad was not a citizen, but his mom was, and he was born on American soil.

Not much Trump can do about that.

He can try to go after my daughters, too, I suppose. They were born in Germany to a German mother (i.e. my wife). The US embassy in Germany made up their U.S. passports on the spot while I waited, within weeks of their birth, and gave them U.S. Social Security numbers as well. I'd like to see the Trumpanzees try to take their U.S. citizenship away. One of them is the youngest partner ever at a top international law firm based out of New York. Trump and Miller wouldn't even know what hit them.

[underpants]

34. Soil doesn't matter in Trump's whackadoodle idea

From what I'm reading his plan is to nullify anyone not born to US citizens regardless of where they are born. Whomever "they" are that told him he could do this are dumbasses (let's assume "they" exist) but then he's never been one to have very good legal representation. Cohn was ruthless but generally they picked on people without means to fight them.

[BumRushDaShow]

43. Executive Orders are not laws.

Congress creates laws (legislation) and that legislation is what the Executive Branch is expected to carry out. The Executive Orders are supposed to be directives/guidance to agencies on how they should carry out the existing laws that were created by Congress (and approved directly or without signature in certain cases by some President, or passed over the objections of a President).

[underpants]

85. That point has been made several times

This idea is complete nonsense but I was just wading into it to discuss its particulars.

Yes this is just pandering

[BumRushDaShow]

90. Okay!

DU has a propensity towards mass-panic and vapors - and especially during times when clear heads are needed. We just have to make sure to stem this --->

[DFW]

46. Obama's mom was from Kansas

Even Trump will have a hard time selling Kansas being a foreign country. That would mean their Senators are no longer US Senators, and the majority passes to the Democrats. Kavanaugh's confirmation becomes null and void, since two of the recorded votes for him in the Senate weren't legitimate. Hey, wait! This bears further discussion!

[underpants]

84. Interesting pint about the votes

[LiberalArkie]

24. No state can deprive a person. But can the federal gov?

[BumRushDaShow]

25. An Executive order is not a "law".

[LiberalArkie]

50. But what court can/will say he is wrong

I have felt for a long time that the Republicans have been wanting to go back like the constitution was, only free male land owners could vote.

[BumRushDaShow]

64. As I posted elsewhere, have all "Muslims" been banned by E.O.?

Remember the several iterations that he signed that were halted by multiple courts? The eventual final version was pretty much neutered by the time it went into effect because it was forced to only allow a "review period" for a much revised set of countries of origin.

Before his term was over, Obama was able to ensure that 9 of 13 Circuit Courts have majority Democratic-appointees. Most cases destined for the SCOTUS end at the Circuits because there is no way the SCOTUS can hear thousands and thousands of cases a year.

Right now, you have an anti-Union/employee-firing related E.O. on hold and multiple attempts at withholding funding for so-called "Sanctuary Cities", also thwarted so far.

[LiberalArkie]

81. I was reading somewhere else in my insomnia this morning that

until 1960, children of non green card parents, or non citizen parents born in the US were not considered citizens.

I am wondering if this is what he is considering.

[BumRushDaShow]

83. Congress had passed LAWS that restricted certain groups from immigration and citizenship

and eventually the laws were either overturned in the courts or new laws were passed revoking those offending laws.

The entirety of his operation's staff are either completely government-ignorant (being "business focused" ) or are anti-government, out to destroy the country from within. And because their party has completely given up on any "oversight" functions, this is why were are in the state we are currently in.

Hopefully if Democrats do retake the House, we will bring oversight BACK.

And remember, the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War because my OWN African-descended slave ancestors were denied citizenship. And the "citizenship" issue had been a result of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

THIS guy -

[The Grinch]

88. No way this is retroactive back to 1960

He is doing this to keep immigration front and center of the news cycle IMHO, and to throw red meat to his supporters.

He will probably declare that any child born to non-citizens do not get citizenship as of this date, not those currently granted it.

He is stupid, but not THAT stupid, the 9th will slap an injunction on it before he's done with the announcement and he know that. What this will do is jump straight to the headlines and stay there for the next couple of weeks, and force the Supreme Court to make a ruling once and for all on citizenship requirements, clarifying who can legally determine it.

[BumRushDaShow]

93. He still cannot do that via Executive Order

Congress could attempt (again, as we've seen them do throughout history) to put in place such a law, but that law would ultimately end up back in the courts. There is already existing law (cited at the very bottom of the below excerpt) that denotes citizenship.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, § 301, 66 Stat. 235; Pub. L. 89–770, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 92–584, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1289; Pub. L. 95–432, §§ 1, 3, Oct. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 1046; Pub. L. 99–653, § 12, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3657; Pub. L. 103–416, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4306.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

And right now, the Senate is too close in terms of party-line votes (even if we lose a seat) for such to pass, and if we take the House, any such thing would be DOA.

[fleabiscuit]

101. I think he is that stupid. nt

[cstanleytech]

48. Assuming the story is legit and not planted in order to distract us but

rally the RBB (Repugnant Bigoted Base) before the election he could try to argue that its not a "law" thus he is not violating the 14th.
It would be pure BS on his part of course and hopefully even a Repugnant packed SCOTUS would throw it out.

[BumRushDaShow]

80. " he could try to argue that its not a "law" thus he is not violating the 14th."

The problem is, given even the ignorance of Civics 101 right here on DU, most people would "believe" that he has the power. THAT is what makes floating this bullshit very powerful.

IGNORANCE.

[Honeycombe8]

58. It wouldn't be retroactive, probably. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

66. It doesn't matter. Executive Orders are NOT "laws"

Congress was given the specific power to make law. An Executive Order is supposed to direct how agencies carry out existing laws.

This is just a stunt right before the election similar to the "Muslim Ban" Executive Order, that itself was summarily blown apart.

[Honeycombe8]

70. Reminder: A ban was issued, ultimately, per the EO.

There's a fine line between an EO and a legislative law. A ban is not "making" a law, one could argue; it's revising the existing restrictions.

I suspect he doesn't plan to do this, or he would have already done it. He talked about this during his campaign. If he does do it, though, he has a stacked Supreme Court, waiting to rubber stamp him.

[BumRushDaShow]

77. The final version purported "ban" was NOT really a "ban"

it was merely a 90-day "waiting/review period" before allowing admission of people from certain countries and by the time it went into effect, the 90 days had pretty much already passed.

And no, there is no "fine line". There are LAWS and there are Executive Orders that direct agencies to carry out the laws in a specific manner.

And no, I don't think they are going to "rubber stamp" him - if anything because there are far too many who might be impacted who are not from Central America.

[jpak]

11. Squirrel!

Idiot

Yup

[ginnyinWI]

51. absolutely. Squirrel! Squirrel! n/t

[Roy Rolling]

12. One Week

He's doing his worst in the one week he has left before Impeachment starts.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

16. There's a Supreme Court case standing in his way.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Wong was born in San Francisco, the son of a Chinese couple who, because of the Chinese Exclusion Acts, were legally prohibited from becoming US citizens. Wong had gone to China to visit relatives, and on return to the US, was refused admittance under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. He sued, saying that under the Fourteenth Amendment, his birth in the US made him a citizen.

The Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-2, agreed with Wong. Justice Gray wrote the majority opinion, which basically, says that everyone, with a few specific exceptions -- chiefly the children of diplomats -- born in the US is a US citizen. He has a very interesting discussion of the term "natural born citizen". See https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

[Honeycombe8]

65. No problem, now. We have a stacked S.Ct. w/two Trump loyalists. 1st time in history...

First time in history we've had a corrupt Supreme Court, like we do now. The Court is in place to rule in favor of Trump. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh will rule in Trump's favor, almost with no exceptions. Alito will look for a way to rule for Trump's position, being far right. Roberts is a little more balanced, but still more right than moderate.

That' the reality.

[BumRushDaShow]

72. The current 5-4 SCOTUS really isn't any different from what it was before

Kennedy left. Kennedy was only a "swing vote" on a few decisions. The rest of the time he voted with his conservative brethren.

[Tarc]

17. This is 100% the work of neo-fascist Stephen Miller, they know they cannot do this by E.O.

This point of this is to distract people from recent events, and essentially troll the news cycle into covering him and one of his cherished topics, anti-immigration. They know that they cannot do this by executive order, but it starts the conversation to get it going in other venues.

The media should spend a few hours on it, move on, then get back to the MAGAbomber and Trump's daily incitement to violence via "campaign rallies".

[BumRushDaShow]

28. Yes. His news cycle was taken away due to the slaughter or potential slaughter of U.S. citizens

and government officials (including 2 former Presidents), so he has to get the attention back.

[Roadside Attraction]

20. Be careful what you pray for . . .

So -- President can use an Executive Order to wipe out parts of the Constitution.

Okay, fine. How about the next Democratic President -- the one elected in 2020 -- issue an EO THAT DECLARES THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO BE NULL AND VOID?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Bet Trump and his asshole advisors didn't think of that.

[Wednesdays]

96. See response #65.

SCOTUS will strike down anything by Dems, and uphold anything by tRump and the Repugs.

[TNNurse]

21. Well, he has padded the Supreme Court

[BumRushDaShow]

29. It's not really "padded"

Anthony Kennedy was only a "swing" vote for a few things. The rest of the time, he voted conservative along with the rest of their ilk.

[watoos]

23. Just saying

the Court is pretty far to the right now. Citizens United passed with a less radical Court. Money=speech and corporations are people seem to be pretty radical notions that became law.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. Executive Orders cannot revoke laws. E.O.'s are not laws.

[watoos]

33. His EO will end up in the SC.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. Remember the "Muslim ban" one

and all its iterations? This one is even more extreme.

The thankful thing is that 9 of the 13 Circuit Courts are Democratic-nominee majorities, the Circuits being where most cases die.

[HAB911]

27. DISTRACTION, total BS

[johnnyfins]

31. This is an eleventh hour election stunt

Now that I've thought about this more, it looks like more red meat for his base. Distract from MAGABomber and MAGAShooter. Man, he must really be sweating these midterms. Hahaha.

[bucolic_frolic]

36. This +10000

[BumRushDaShow]

41. Yes it is specifically to get news cycles back before the election to gin up his deplorable base.

[harun]

71. Sign of desperation. A stunt that will not work.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

32. This is to drum up votes. Just like sending the military to the Southern border.

[agingdem]

37. Retroactive?

My parents were Holocaust survivors...they were not US citizens until after I was born...I'm a 70 year old "anchor baby"..so Don where exactly do you plan to deport me?!

[bucolic_frolic]

38. If this stands, can we deport al MAGAts?

some of these deplorables are beyond redemption and salvation

[Honeycombe8]

47. I think he talked about this during his campaign. So it's same ol', same ol'. nt

[Perseus]

52. This is all about isolation from other countries

Every move this chimp makes is to isolate the USA, this is what dictators do, you get the World to despise you and stay away, it allows the dictator to destroy from the inside out, and when people finally wake up, they have laws that cut their freedom. The worst part is that the idiots who support the man-child think they will be immune to the administration actions, they think the bullets won't get to them, but when they realize that is not so, its too late.

These people in office must be taken out and I hope the republican cheating, aided by Russia, during the elections won't be enough for the country to clean up the filth in government.

[orangecrush]

100. THIS!!!

[Odoreida]

55. I do not believe this story.

Sure the Republican base would love it. That's no the point.

[still_one]

59. It is reported on all the news outlets. Why don't you believe it?

[Odoreida]

61. Is considering news outlets infallible now a loyalty test? n/t

[still_one]

92. Bloomberg s a reliable news source. Are you saying it is fake news?

It isn’t fox

[Honeycombe8]

63. No, he did say this. It's being reported in the news, and I heard the video of him...

saying that he WANTS to do this. Doesn't mean he will, of course. It's just a dog whistle, at this point, to appeal to anti-immigrant base.

He also talked about this during his campaign. This is a thing among the white supremacists and other far right groups. They have been pushing for this for some time.

[Javaman]

56. does that mean that the orange asshole is going deport himself?

considering his asshole grandfather (awol and grifter) came to the U.S. undocumented, does that make the orange asshole illegal as well? aka defacto illegally here?


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-grandfather-germany-letter-deportation-us-bavaria-dreamers-a7903071.html


Donald Trump’s grandfather wrote letter begging not to be deported. Here it is

snip...

More than a 100 years later, his grandson, Donald Trump, imposed new immigration rules that would have kept his grandfather out of the US.

[walkingman]

60. Where are the "strict constitutionalists" when we need them. Watching Jerry Springer.

[MadDAsHell]

67. Whether true or not, I love the political timing of the release of this rumor. nt

[yellerpup]

68. So, the birthright pResident wants to terminate birthright citizenship.

Make it retroactive back to 1945 or so and he won't be eligible any longer. Both his parents were immigrants.

[videohead5]

73. I don't care how Republican

The supreme court is they will not let the constitution be changed by an EO.

[vlyons]

74. I almost wish he would write such an executive order.

He took an oath to uphold the constitution, which as we should all know includes the 14th amendment. Such an executive order would be an abuse of power and should be impeachable.

Even if he writes such an order, it would be struck down by every court. So let's get one thing straight. Republicans talk a big deal about their love of the constitution, but do they really? Seems that they like certain parts, guns for example, but the parts about civil rights, voting rights, popular vote for Senators -- eh -- not so much.

The Republican party has long gone with the wind. What it has become is a neo-Fascist party.

This is just another Trump distraction. Here we are talking about Trump's agenda, but not talking about healthcare or raising the minimum wage of sensible gun laws.

Trump is so tiresome.

[spinbaby]

75. Wow, that would make me not a citizen

But I’m white European, so he probably didn’t have me in mind.

[Brainstormy]

76. Me too. n/t

[bronxiteforever]

82. Dotard Don doesn't know how to write a law

It takes too much work.

Plus this EO would be clearly unconstitutional since the Sup Ct in 1898 ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The 14th Amendment is also codified in federal statutory law at 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. So the birthright citizenship is found in the 14th Amendment, US Supreme Ct case law and for added measure federal statutory law.

[BumRushDaShow]

94. Thank you for that citation

[bronxiteforever]

97. You are welcome!

[BumRushDaShow]

98. Got that sucker up in a browser tab!

and included it in another post in this thread!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

(plus the above link has citations to the laws that USC used to establish the code)

[dawg day]

89. Ivana Trump was undocumented.

Melania trump was probably here on a falsely attained Visa. Four of Trump's children are thus ... not quite citizens?

[Snellius]

91. Obviously gave this as much "thought" as his zero-tolerance policy

Or a 10% tax cut for everyone. Next week! When he starts passing out thousand-dollar bills, or handing out government services for free, well, we'll see...

[mahatmakanejeeves]

95. Same story, from CNN:

Last edited Tue Oct 30, 2018, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Trump claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship

By Kevin Liptak and Devan Cole, CNN

Updated 9:44 AM ET, Tue October 30, 2018

Washington (CNN) -- President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections.

Trump's vow to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil came in an interview with Axios released Tuesday. Such a step would be regarded as an affront to the US Constitution, which was amended 150 years ago to include the words: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Trump did not say when he would sign the order, and some of his past promises to use executive action have gone unfulfilled. But whether the President follows through on his threat or not, the issue joins a string of actions intended to thrust the matter of immigration into the front of voters' minds as they head to polls next week.

A day earlier, the President vowed in an interview on Fox News to construct tent cities to house migrants traveling through Mexico to the US southern border. His administration announced the deployment of 5,200 troops to protect the frontier as the "caravan" continues to advance. And the President has warned of an "invasion" of undocumented immigrants if the border isn't sealed with a wall.
....

CNN's Abby Phillip contributed to this report.

And some blowback:

Trump says he'll sign order to end citizenship for babies born in US to non-citizens, but it's unclear if he has the authority https://cnn.it/2yJKKiS

Link to tweet

Your tweet irresponsibly feeds this nonsense. You say nothing in the article to support Trump's lie about his authority, which clearly goes agst the plain language of the Constitution. Don't call it "dubious" & "unclear" when the facts clearly show an outrageous lie & power grab

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

99. This is to gin up the base and claim to have "fulfilled his promises".

(except we are still waiting for Mexico to "pay for the wall" )

[Cold War Spook]

102. He is sending troops to protect the frontier.

Will they only be protecting the frontier, or also the wagon trains.