LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONG PUTS OUT $1.5 BILLION YEARLY FOR ANCHOR BABY WELFARE.. NOT ONE LEGAL VOTED FOR THE ANCHOR BABY WELFARE STATE IN L.A. COUNTRY OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN AMERIA!
Many Democrats understand that the welfare checks for foreign children will encourage more illegal immigration, he said:
They know what’s going on. But they know that they can’t say what their true goal is, which is actual open borders with open, uncontrolled migration both ways. And this is a step toward getting rid of borders.
“It’s a globalist mindset and it welcomes anything that moves toward open borders,” he concluded. NEIL MUNRO
Today’s anchor baby population exceeds the annual number of U.S. births. Whereas four million Americans are born every year, the anchor baby population stands at five million.
Afghans Brought to U.S. by Biden Deliver 250 Children, Securing Birthright American Citizenship
DeSANTIS VOWS TO PUSH THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS OUT OF AMERICA'S UNDEFENDED BORDER
Ron DeSantis: The FBI and DOJ have been weaponized against Americans
A flooded labor market from mass immigration has had a devastating impact on working- and middle-class Americans, while redistributing billions in wealth to the top one percent of earners and big business. While creating an economy that tilts in favor of employers, the mass immigration economic model has helped keep wages stagnant for decades. JOHN BINDER
THE BORDER DOES NOT EXIST TO THESE TWO LAWYER SHITS!
Border Crossers Getting into U.S. via Loophole in Biden’s Migrant Mobile App
Border crossers are getting into the United States via a loophole in President Joe Biden’s migrant mobile app which allows foreign nationals in Mexico to schedule appointments at the southern border for release into the nation’s interior.
For more than two years, Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has implemented a number of programs in its expansive catch and release network, including the “CBP One” mobile app.
The mobile app entices foreign nationals in Mexico who are pregnant, mentally ill, elderly, disabled, homeless, or crime victims to schedule an appointment with DHS officials at the border in the hopes of being released into American communities.
Border Report now reveals that even border crossers who are not eligible or failing to secure appointments through the mobile app are using a loophole in the system to get into the U.S. interior.
“… some migrants have found a loophole in the requirement and have begun camping out at the San Ysidro Port of Entry waiting for access to the U.S.,” Border Report reports:
Migrants like Cesar Segura, are claiming the technology used by the CBP One online system for appointments is faulty, thus giving him and others a reason to ask for an appointment in person at ports of entry such as San Ysidro. [Emphasis added]
…
Migrants are allowed to seek entry into the U.S. at a port of entry if they can’t use the CBP One app due “to language barriers, illiteracy or technical issues.” [Emphasis added]
Judging by the long line, many migrants are becoming aware of this loophole and are camping out along the pedestrian lanes leading into the border crossing from Tijuana. Many can be seen walking up to CBP officers who take down names and nationalities. [Emphasis added]
Among the border crossers taking advantage of the mobile app loophole are those from Venezuela, Russia, various countries in Asia, and many countries in Central and South America.
As Breitbart News reported this week, Biden’s DHS has increased the number of foreign nationals that it will now allow to use the mobile app to get into the U.S. interior. Annually, close to half a million will be able to schedule appointments at the border and subsequently get released into the country at a 99 percent success rate.
From late January to mid-May, the mobile app helped get more than 80,000 foreign nationals released into the U.S. interior.
This week, as Breitbart News exclusively reported, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration for its use of programs like the mobile app, among others, that is helping release tens of thousands of border crossers and illegal aliens into American communities every month.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
WHAT WOULD THE HOUSING CRISIS BE WITHOUT 50 MILLION DEM VOTING ILLEGALS?
DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THE JOBS REPORT! Manufacturing jobs -2K. We hardly make anything
Exclusive – J.D. Vance: GOP Must Call Out Illegal Immigration as ‘Economic Warfare’ Against Working Americans
Millions Struggle To Pay Their Rent and Mortgages as Incomes Decline and Expenses Continue To Grow
The result is that today there are upwards of 40 million illegal aliens in the country, with millions more crossing the border every year.
Like the gun data, the data on illegal aliens isn’t hard to understand. It’s pretty simple math. The phones alone that the Biden administration gives to illegals cost $360,000 every day while, in the aggregate, illegal aliens cost Americans $250 billion per year. To put that in perspective, the wall Trump wanted to build was estimated to have a price tag of under $25 billion.
Rethinking Citizenship—Is Born In The U.S.A. Enough?
By Anony Mee
There are two main paths to acquiring citizenship in the United States and a few minor ones. The first is to be born here. The others are via legal immigration, birth abroad to a U.S. citizen, and certain adoptions.
Then there’s birthright citizenship, which is recognized in only 25 countries, 13% of the nations on earth, and all but three of them are in the Americas. In recent years, France, New Zealand, Australia, and Ireland have abolished birthright citizenship.
The US-born children of foreign diplomatic officers are not eligible to be citizens. Citizenship is currently granted, however, to all other children born here to foreigners, about 10% of the close to 4 million births here in 2019.
About a quarter of these are the children of Chinese and other-nationality women engaged in “birth tourism.” They constitute a growing group of American citizens with no connections to the United States, its people, culture, or dynamism, other than their return ticket to their home country after having been born here and a U.S. passport. The other three-quarters are born to illegal aliens, more than likely to parents living in fear while striving to stay under the DHS radar—not a particularly healthy relationship with their country of residence.
The history of citizenship law is interesting and full of twists and turns. Andrew R. Arthur, Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and a former Immigration Judge, lays it all out in his article Birthright Citizenship: An Overview. CIS has published a number of pieces with varying viewpoints on this topic over the years that can be found here.
The current practice needs to be changed, I believe, especially considering the millions now pouring across our southern border. The most reasonable process would be to pass a law holding that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents is accorded the immigration status of those parents.
Thus, a child born to foreign university students, who hold current and valid legal admissions to study in the United States, would be accorded the temporary status of a child of a student (nonimmigrant visa classification F-2). This is the status the child would have had if it was born in the parents’ home country, or in any of nearly 170 other countries, before their arrival here or while home during a school break. The same should hold for every other child born here to an alien in temporary status and good standing—workers, researchers, tourists, business executives, athletes, and all the rest.
A child born in the United States to lawfully admitted permanent residents (LPRs, also called green card holders) should be born a permanent resident. The child can be naturalized at the same time as its parents or upon becoming eligible to apply on his or her own.
Image by Andrea Widburg
Refugees and Asylees
By definition in law, a refugee is a person who has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on specific grounds in his or her home country, the grounds of which are of interest to the United States. Being poor, or wanting a different or better life elsewhere, classifies one as an economic migrant, not a refugee.
When I worked on refugee issues long ago, countries generally adhered to the principle of country of first asylum. That is, once a person was free from the country that persecuted him, he was deemed to have found refuge and would be expected to seek a home there.
Some countries bordering the sources of persecuted people, however, were too poor or otherwise unable to take in many refugees so the international community would process them in the country of first asylum for placement elsewhere. Those taken in by the United States entered with the status of refugee.
An asylee is someone who applies for and is granted refugee status from within the United States. Typically, under the principle of country of first asylum, this would be someone who washes up on our shores like Cubans or Haitians, or who manages to get on a plane in his home country that disembarks in the United States. Historically, it did not include anyone presenting themselves at a land or other border who had passed through other countries to get here.
Those granted refugee or asylee status have the option to qualify for and obtain permanent residence and eventually citizenship. Their children born here should be accorded conditional permanent resident status. This conditional status could then be converted to LPR status when the parents obtain LPR status or upon application on their own when 21 or older.
Illegals
Those who enter the United States without permission and those who overstay their temporary visas are illegal aliens; just being here out of status is a crime. Children born to them should have no legal immigration status. Children belong to their parents, not to the state. They belong with their parents. If parents are removed from the U.S., then their children should go with them.
These proposed changes to current practice would have a salutary effect on the country. We would not see our population growing due to those fraudulently applying for visas to do one thing when they are actually coming to get a foothold in the country through giving birth to an anchor baby. Fraud is not a nice way to start any relationship.
The current wait is a minimum of 21 years, the age at which an American citizen can petition for his or her parents to receive immigrant visas. Despite this, hundreds of thousands of children are born in this country to illegals every year. Mr. Arthur’s article details the cost of these births to the U.S. taxpayer. Breaking the anchor chain is a worthy goal and might well deter a percentage of the current tsunami of illegals at our borders.
Republicans in Congress need to get busy and introduce new legislation designed to clarify and limit nationality to those who may rightfully claim it. Though such a bill wouldn’t go anywhere this session, it would be ready to be reintroduced and passed as soon as the 118th Congress is installed. Then it can be passed again over a Presidential veto and become law. Note my optimism for a sweeping change in 2022. Let’s Go Brandon!
[See also Anony Mee's essay arguing against a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.]
Anony Mee is the nom de blog of a retired public servant.
Many Democrats understand that the welfare checks for foreign children will encourage more illegal immigration, he said:
They know what’s going on. But they know that they can’t say what their true goal is, which is actual open borders with open, uncontrolled migration both ways. And this is a step toward getting rid of borders.
“It’s a globalist mindset and it welcomes anything that moves toward open borders,” he concluded. NEIL MUNRO
LOS ANGELES COUNTY ALONE PUTS OUT $1.3 BILLION YEARLY TO THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S ANCHOR BABY WELFARE STATE. JUST ONE COUNTY. THE STATE OF CA HANDS ILLEGALS $35 BILLION YEARLY IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO KEEP ILLEGALS HAPPY AND VOTING DEM FOR MORE!
Today’s anchor baby population exceeds the annual number of U.S. births. Whereas four million Americans are born every year, the anchor baby population stands at five million.
Many Democrats understand that the welfare checks for foreign children will encourage more illegal immigration, he said:
They know what’s going on. But they know that they can’t say what their true goal is, which is actual open borders with open, uncontrolled migration both ways. And this is a step toward getting rid of borders.
“It’s a globalist mindset and it welcomes anything that moves toward open borders,” he concluded. NEIL MUNRO
Afghans Brought to U.S. by Biden Deliver 250 Children, Securing Birthright American Citizenship
Jon Cherry/ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images
3 Dec 20210
3:02
Hundreds of children have been born to newly-arrived Afghans who were brought to the United States as part of President Joe Biden’s massive resettlement operation since mid-August, securing birthright citizenship in the process.
Biden started the operation in the midst of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan — bringing at least 70,000 Afghans to the country for resettlement with minimal standard vetting procedures.
Since then, Republicans and Democrats in Congress have bankrolled the operation to the sum of more than $13.3 billion in American taxpayer money.
According to data from the U.S. Army, more than 250 U.S.-born children have been delivered to newly-arrived Afghans since the end of August.
Most of the children have been born to Afghans temporarily living on various U.S. military bases which the Biden administration has converted into refugee camps until non-governmental organizations (NGOs) resettle the Afghans across 46 states.
Despite their parents having only arrived over the last few months, the U.S.-born children of Afghans are able to secure birthright American citizenship thanks to the nation’s so-called anchor baby policy.
The policy allows any foreign national, regardless of whether they have ties to the U.S. or not, to secure birthright American citizenship for their child so long as they are born within the physical perimeters of the country.
The U.S. is among one of only two nations in the developed world to have such a policy.
For Afghans, the policy is significant as many new arrivals have yet to secure visas or refugee status and thus will rely heavily on their U.S.-born child’s birthright American citizenship to obtain green cards years from now.
Former President Trump had said he was readying a plan to end birthright citizenship with an executive order that likely would have been challenged by open borders organizations, forcing the issue potentially up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Trump, though, did not sign any such order while in office.
To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic American citizenship, and a number of legal scholars dispute the idea.
Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children were not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Today’s anchor baby population exceeds the annual number of U.S. births. Whereas four million Americans are born every year, the anchor baby population stands at five million.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
The List: 19 Senate Republicans Give Biden Over $13B to Resettle Unlimited Flow of Afghans Across Their States
Kevin Dietsch/Joe Raedle/Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images
3 Dec 20210
3:36
President Joe Biden’s massive Afghan resettlement operation, with no end date, has been funded by Congress to the sum of more than $13 billion thanks to 19 Senate Republicans who helped advance the plan.
Late Thursday evening, House Democrats and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) passed a government funding bill that will keep the federal government operating through mid-February. In the bill is more than $7 billion in funding for the Biden administration to resettle an unlimited number of Afghans across the United States.
In the Senate, 19 Senate Republicans joined Senate Democrats to send the bill to Biden’s desk — now authorizing, in total, $13.3 billion for the administration to resettle Afghans after 49 House and Senate Republicans voted in September to fund the resettlement operation $6.4 billion.
These 19 Senate Republicans who backed the bill are:
· Roy Blunt (R-MO)
· Richard Burr (R-NC)
· Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
· Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
· Susan Collins (R-ME)
· John Cornyn (R-TX)
· Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
· Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
· John Kennedy (R-LA)
· Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
· Jerry Moran (R-KS)
· Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
· Rob Portman (R-OH)
· Mike Rounds (R-SD)
· Marco Rubio (R-FL)
· Richard Shelby (R-AL)
· Thom Tillis (R-NC)
· Roger Wicker (R-MS)
· Todd Young (R-IN)
In the bill, Afghans and other foreign nationals are identified as “individuals at risk” who can take part in “relocations” to the U.S. “as a result of the situation in Afghanistan.”
Senate Republican support for Biden’s Afghan resettlement operation comes even as Republican voters are deeply opposed to the plan, multiple polls have shown. The latest Pew Research Center survey shows that 63 percent of GOP voters oppose the plan.
In addition, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has admitted that “not all” Afghans are being vetted through standard in-person interview procedures.
“We are not conducting in-person, refugee interviews of 100 percent individuals,” Mayorkas told lawmakers last month during a hearing.
Afghans are being temporarily housed across various U.S. military bases in Texas, New Jersey, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, and New Mexico. From there, they are resettled across 46 states, at a rate of about 4,000 resettled every day, as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) help to secure them jobs.
The nation’s Afghan population has exploded since former President George W. Bush started the Afghanistan War in 2001. The number of Afghans living in the U.S., for instance, has shot up to 133,000 in 2019 — more than three times the 44,000 Afghans who lived in the U.S. before the start of the war.
The data revealed also that most Afghan arrivals in the U.S. live on welfare.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Levin: Cruz, Trump, Sessions ‘Are Right,’ 14th Amendment Doesn’t Mandate Birthright Citizenship
Talk radio host and author of “Plunder and Deceit,” Mark Levin said that the 14th Amendment does not require birthright citizenship on Wednesday.
Host Sean Hannity stated, “Rand Paul was right on this, Trump was right on this, Cruz is right on this, Walker’s right on this.” He then put up a quotation from Citizenship Clause author Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) during the debate on the 14th Amendment that “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the [United States]. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Levin said that people are getting the clause wrong, “Because they’re result-oriented. Because they want to insist the Constitution says what it doesn’t say. Moreover, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens. So the Supreme Court never ruled, even if they did, it would be wrong. The clause speaks for itself, the author of the clause made it abundantly, unequivocally clear, let’s add another thing, let’s read the clause together, shall we? ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States.’ Let’s stop there. If it means what the proponents of birthright citizenship say, it would stop right there. ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States’ are citizens. There’s no need for anything else, but that’s what it says. Then it says, and, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Now, you have slip and fall lawyers, some phony constitutional lawyers, they have ‘Esquire’ after their name, they come on TV, they go all over the place, ‘Jurisdiction means geography.’ Jurisdiction has nothing to do with geography. zero. It had to do with political allegiance to the United States of America. How do we know it? Because they said it. And they also excluded everybody that the left, and some of the Republicans want to include. Now here’s the good news, there’s another part of the Constitution. It’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Here’s what that says, in plain English. ‘The Congress shall have power to…establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Now, you know what that means, that means Congress, not the courts, not the president, not ICE, it means the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration in this regard. And guess what, Sean, in the 1920s, that’s exactly what it did. The 14th Amendment excludes Indians, that is Native Americans, as US citizens, because they felt that they had allegiance to their own national tribes. Okay, great, and I believe it was in 1923, Congress reversed course, and said, ‘You know what? Under the 14th Amendment and under this Article I, we’ve decided to grant citizenship, national citizenship to all Native Americans.”
He added, “Of course Trump is right, and Cruz is right, and Sessions is right, they’re all right. And to hear so-called constitutional conservatives trip all over themselves to sound like liberals, to rewrite this provision, and accuse those of us who actually know something about it, know the history about it, know the senators who were involved in it, know what went into it, know what was meant by it, that we’re the activists, that we’re the extremists. Look, if you want of a policy of open borders, that anybody born here should become a United States citizen, you amend the Constitution. We don’t have to amend the Constitution, it says what we say it says, and by statutes, by statute, going forward, prospectively, Congress can, in fact, say, ‘We want to emphasize to this federal government, to this president, no, you cannot make children of illegal aliens American citizens automatically.'”
Levin also weighed in on Hillary Clinton’s server controversy, arguing Clinton and her aides should have to testify in front of a grand jury. And “Here’s the bottom line, that information belongs to the American people. That information, we paid for. That information may or may not be classified. If it’s classified, she’s in bigger trouble. Even if it’s not classified, if she has personal emails on a government server, they belong to us. Now, here’s the section of the law that is most problematic for Hillary Clinton, the Federal Penal Code, Section 793, ‘Whoever being entrusted with, or having lawful possession or control of any document…or information, relating to the national defense, through gross negligence,’ not purposeful intent, ‘permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed’ and so forth. Why do we not have a federal grand jury? Why do we have to learn all this piecemeal from the media? We don’t even know what kind of investigation is going on. This is serious business. Now, it’s time for Obama to get off the damn golf course and Martha’s Vineyard, and do something about this.”
Levin concluded that polling showing Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz polling first, second, and third shows, “the heart and core of the Republican Party, Reagan conservatives, constitutional conservatives, are disgusted with a party that’s lost its way, and got majorities in the House and Senate by lying to us about defunding Obamacare, lying to us about immigration, and so forth and so on, and the American people, including we conservatives, we’re looking for a leader, we’re looking for a statesman, and we will find one, and we will nominate that person, and hopefully, we will elect that person to the presidency. We’ll see who it turns out to be, but that’s what’s going on, we are fed up with the Republican establishment.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
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 hard-line immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another standoff with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable, to say the least.
[Get more stories like this in our daily morning newsletter, Axios AM. Sign up here.]
Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.
- "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
- When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
- "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," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)
- "It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
The president expressed surprise that "Axios on HBO" knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "
- Behind the scenes: "Axios on HBO" had been working for weeks on a story on Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office.
The legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment, which says:
- "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."
Be smart: Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president's power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.
- But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.
- John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — such as green card holders and citizens.
Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.
- Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s a good chance.)
- But others — such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans — say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."
Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.
- Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.
- The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving immigrants in the country illegally or those with temporary legal status.
The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said.
The full interview will air on "Axios on HBO" this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.
Go deeper:
- Reality check: Trump told migrants to go home. That's not how the system works
- Infographic: What happens when families cross the border
- The big picture: U.S. could face prolonged era of anti-immigrant fever
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 hard-line immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another standoff with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable, to say the least.
[Get more stories like this in our daily morning newsletter, Axios AM. Sign up here.]
Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.
- "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
- When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
- "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," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)
- "It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
The president expressed surprise that "Axios on HBO" knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "
- Behind the scenes: "Axios on HBO" had been working for weeks on a story on Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office.
The legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment, which says:
- "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."
Be smart: Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president's power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.
- But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.
- John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — such as green card holders and citizens.
Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.
- Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s a good chance.)
- But others — such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans — say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."
Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.
- Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.
- The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving immigrants in the country illegally or those with temporary legal status.
The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said.
The full interview will air on "Axios on HBO" this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.
Go deeper:
- Reality check: Trump told migrants to go home. That's not how the system works
- Infographic: What happens when families cross the border
- The big picture: U.S. could face prolonged era of anti-immigrant fever
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 hard-line immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another standoff with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable, to say the least.
[Get more stories like this in our daily morning newsletter, Axios AM. Sign up here.]
Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.
- "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
- When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
- "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," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)
- "It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
The president expressed surprise that "Axios on HBO" knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "
- Behind the scenes: "Axios on HBO" had been working for weeks on a story on Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office.
The legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment, which says:
- "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."
Be smart: Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president's power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.
- But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.
- John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — such as green card holders and citizens.
Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.
- Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s a good chance.)
- But others — such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans — say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."
Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.
- Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.
- The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving immigrants in the country illegally or those with temporary legal status.
The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said.
The full interview will air on "Axios on HBO" this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.
Donald Trump reiterates pledge to scrap birthright US citizenship
Ex-president promises executive order revoking right enshrined in 14th amendment during anti-immigrant tirade on social media
Speaking 125 years after the US supreme court settled the issue of birthright citizenship, former president Donald Trump pledged once again to end it.
If elected back to the White House next year, Trump said in a video posted to social media on Tuesday, he will on day one sign an executive order to ensure the children of undocumented migrants “will not receive automatic US citizenship”.
Recycling ugly, anti-migrant claims, Trump also said his order would “choke off a major incentive for continued illegal immigration, deter more migrants from coming and encourage many of the aliens Joe Biden has unlawfully let into our country to go”.
Birthright citizenship is included in the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which was passed by the Senate in 1866 and ratified two years later. The relevant passage says: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
In 1898, in US v Wong Kim Ark, the supreme court settled an outstanding question, ruling that the child of Chinese citizens born in the US was automatically a US citizen.
Trump has repeatedly said he will remove the right regardless.
Having campaigned on the issue in 2015 he did not let it drop as president, telling Axios three years later: “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t.”
He added: “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. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”
In fact, more than 30 other countries offer birthright citizenship.
Trump claimed the revocation of US birthright citizenship was “in the process” and said: “It’ll happen … with an executive order.”
It did not happen.
Experts predicted then, and predict now, that any attempt to remove birthright citizenship by executive order would face immediate challenge and swift defeat.
Writing in 2018, the Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said the proposal would have “no chance of surviving review, even by the judges and justices the president has appointed”.
Go deeper:
- Reality check: Trump told migrants to go home. That's not how the system works
- Infographic: What happens when families cross the border
- The big picture: U.S. could face prolonged era of anti-immigrant fever
No comments:
Post a Comment