No President Has the Power to Do This

No President, by executive order, has the power to change citizens grants.

President Trump wants to end birthright citizenship, i.e. the idea that one who is born on American soil is automatically an American citizen.

Regardless of the merits of birthright citizen, no President can or should have the power to alter long held constitutional meaning. The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted to mean someone born in the United States, excepting those formally representing foreign governments, automatically become citizens by virtue of birth in this country.

You can feel free to claim the interpretation is wrong, but that is how it has long been done and Congress, which has the power over immigration, has never changed it.

Allowing any President to change any long held interpretation of the Constitution is a dangerous game that no Republican should want any President to have. This President and his party will not control the White House forever. Imagine letting Barack Obama interpret the "free exercise of religion" clause to declare, as he tried before the Supreme Court, it only means worship.

Article 1 of the Constitution allows Congress to set immigration laws. Congress has declared that all people born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens. If you argue illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then you need to stop charging them with crimes under American law and remove them from the United States.

Likewise, if your argument is premised on "subject to the jurisdiction" language in the 14th amendment, the President does not have unilateral authority to change the meaning via an executive order. This is a dangerous, autocratic power that the Founders did not intend to give a President. What is so deeply hilarious is watching some segments of the right who've long thought Marbury v. Madison was a judicial overreach suddenly claiming the President can, by executive order, change long standing constitutional interpretations.

Comments
No. 1-25
TimCooper
TimCooper

I am not in favor of executive orders and was angry when Obama did it. The anchor baby issue needs to be resolved one way or the other. There is something fundamentally wrong with rewarding those that come here illegally by making their offspring citizens. I would be hard pressed to find legal precedence for rewarding illegal behavior. its like Judge Judy always says...You have to come to court with clean hands. It seems, and perhaps I am wrong, that there are fundamental concepts here were reasonable people on both sides can find some common ground. I mean control of the border...how can you be against that? Requiring people to enter the country in a legal fashion? Again, how are people opposed to this? right now, we cannot even enforce our own immigration law without one side calling the other racist or xenophobic or whatever other insult can be hurled.

fdemonbrun
fdemonbrun

Not true - "long held interpretation" does not law make. The 14th is unmistakably referring to the children of slaves; prior court decisions have upheld that the citizenship of children is solely dependent upon the citizenship of the parents. Since it's a "practice" and not either "law" or "precedent" in the legal sense, EO is a perfectly legitimate method for curtailing the practice.

gregschipper77
gregschipper77

Sure he does... watch and learn. We all learned this from Obama.

AmericaISgreat
AmericaISgreat

They forgot where they parked that trunk loads of ballots. Need to find it fast.

Big J Boy
Big J Boy

I completely agree with Erick here. I in no way see anything intentional or aggressive. It is an overblown drama by the White House and the Right.