President Trump reverted to one of his presidential campaign topics today. The president announced in an interview outside the White House yesterday that he intends to use an executive order to terminate citizenship rights for children that are born in the U.S. to parents who are not American citizens. However, the Democrats Legal scholars and even Republican, House Speaker Paul Ryan immediately opposed his executive order. Ryan Declared that the decision to change the law would be up to Congress, not the White House.
Throughout his campaign and repeatedly last year, Trump mentioned he might use an executive order to stop birthright citizenship. He believes it supports illegal immigration and “anchor babies.” Democrats, who run an overwhelming portion of the immigrant vote, called the plan unconstitutional. Representatives, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, were quick to portray Trump’s remarks as a political performance to his base.
Heritage Foundation senior legal, Hans Spakovsky commented on the issue. “Today, many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws. And complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well.”
While illegal immigrants are unable to vote, under the birthright citizenship policy, their children can. An estimated 4.5 million children have been born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. and were granted citizenship through birth in the United States.
Birthright Citizenship was initially created to free white people. However, in 1857, the Constitution specified citizenship as open to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It was made to override the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford declaration that refused African Americans citizenship. Making citizenship only to be applied to slaves within the U.S. and not foreigners entering the country. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, adding, that once born in the U.S., they “are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Many suggest the existing law inspires expecting parents to come to the United States to have their children (sometimes referred to as birth tourism). To increase the parent’s chances of receiving legal residency themselves. Public leaders, including former congressman Virgil Goode, have controversially named this the “anchor baby” situation
Consequently, a child is solely subjected to the jurisdiction of the same government as their parents. If the child’s parents are in the United States illegally, this means that they are citizens somewhere else. Therefore they hold allegiance to another country. Consequently, the child could not be considered a U.S. citizen according to the 14th Amendment. After thorough consideration of the knowledge presented, one could only conclude that the 14th Amendment has been falsely represented and enforced for many years.
Judicial experts say the ultimate question concerning birthright citizenship is whether the 14th Amendment, which allows citizenship to include the children of illegal immigrants, whether or not those children are “subject” to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Back in 2018, Trump tweeted:
A former national security adviser for Donald Trump stated on Fox News. “There’s a clause in the middle of the Amendment that people ignore, or they misinterpret (subject to the jurisdiction thereof).”
“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States … with all of those benefits.” The president concluded. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”
Overall the conclusion on birthright citizenship remains up in the air, for now, check back with us on updates covering this ongoing issue!