doubt anyone will tell you it's a bad thing but they will use it as further "proof" of something or another with Trump
I believe the only 2 advanced economies that employ birthright citizenship are USA and Canada...so it's ok for the rest of the world to NOT have this policy but it's racist for America to implement it. Apparently what suits Europe, Australia, and Asia isn't good enough for us and that we should continue a policy used by venezuela, nicaragua, and other nations where people are trying to flee
The problem with this is that it just another empty promise that he will never do out of laziness and disrespect for our country:
-build a wall
-repeal and replace Obamacare
-lock her up
-drain the swamp
-tear up a part of the Constitution
all things that would Make America Great Again that Trump probably won’t do
-build a wall
-repeal and replace Obamacare
-lock her up
-drain the swamp
-tear up a part of the Constitution
all things that would Make America Great Again that Trump probably won’t do
[h=2]Trump claims the 14th Amendment DOESN'T grant citizenship to 'Anchor Babies' of illegal immigrants – and cites retired Democratic senator's argument as he predicts Supreme Court will have to decide[/h]
President Donald Trump doubled down Wednesday on his claim that the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant automatic citizenship to every child born inside the country's borders. He predicted the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the question, reintroduced the controversial term 'anchor baby' into the national debate and cited Sen. Harry Reid to support his argument. 'So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other,' Trump tweeted.
President Donald Trump doubled down Wednesday on his claim that the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant automatic citizenship to every child born inside the country's borders. He predicted the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the question, reintroduced the controversial term 'anchor baby' into the national debate and cited Sen. Harry Reid to support his argument. 'So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other,' Trump tweeted.
[h=2]Trump claims the 14th Amendment DOESN'T grant citizenship to 'Anchor Babies' of illegal immigrants – and cites ex-Democratic leader Harry Reid as he predicts Supreme Court battle[/h]
- President said he wants to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship
- Trump said the current policy is 'ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end'
- On Wednesday he claimed the Constitution's 14th Amendment has limits
- Trump noted that it applies to people 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., implying that illegal immigrants don't qualify
- He cited former Democratic Sen. Harry Reid in 1993, complaining that the U.S. offers a citizenship incentive for illegal immigrants to have babies here
- VP Mike Pence says the Supreme Court has been silent on how the Fourteenth Amendment relates to illegal immigrants
- House Speaker Paul Ryan insists Trump can't make a change without Congress or a new constitutional amendment
President Donald Trump doubled down Wednesday on his claim that the U.S. Constitution doesn't grant automatic citizenship to every child born inside the country's borders.
He predicted the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the question, reintroduced the controversial term 'anchor baby' into the national debate and cited a retired Democratic Senate leader to support his argument.
'So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other,' Trump tweeted.
'It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", the president added, before cutting his message off in mid-sentence and pausing for nearly an hour before continuing.
'Harry Reid was right in 1993, before he and the Democrats went insane,' Trump claimed, referring to a now-infamous Senate floor speech in which Reid, a Nevada Democrat and future Senate majority leader, blasted the practice of birthright citizenship.
+12
President Donald Trump says he wants to end the tradition of conferring U.S. citizenship on babies born inside the country's borders regardless of whether their parents are Americans
+12
Trump tweeted Wednesday that the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment only applies to people who aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. – meaning in his view that babies born to people in the country illegally don't enjoy its benefits
+12
The president cited Democrat Harry Reid, who was a Nevada senator in 1993 when he said 'no sane country' would grant automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrant mothers
+12
Hundreds of thousands of babies are born each year to illegal immigrants parents in the United States, and the conventional reading of the 14th Amendment gives them all citizenship rights –– something Canada is the only other First World country to offer
'If making it easy to be an illegal immigrant isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again,' Reid said in 1993.
'If you break our laws by entering our country without permission to give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides, and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?'
In a typical year about 250,000 illegal immigrants give birth in the U.S., driving conservative Republicans to stoke controversy about their long-term impacts on welfare systems, education costs and other drivers of the national debt.
Current national policy stems from an 1898 Supreme Court ruling, but the high court has never spoken on the question of whether the 14th Amendment covers children born to people inside the U.S. illegally.
On Wednesday Trump suggested Democrats' conversion away from Reid's 1993 positon is tied to the party's acceptance of an 'open borders' philosophy 'which brings massive Crime.'
'Don’t forget the nasty term Anchor Babies,' he added. 'I will keep our Country safe. This case will be settled by the United States Supreme Court!'
+12
'If making it easy to be an illegal immigrant isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again,' Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid said in 1993, years before he became the Senate majority leader
He predicted the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the question, reintroduced the controversial term 'anchor baby' into the national debate and cited a retired Democratic Senate leader to support his argument.
'So-called Birthright Citizenship, which costs our Country billions of dollars and is very unfair to our citizens, will be ended one way or the other,' Trump tweeted.
'It is not covered by the 14th Amendment because of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", the president added, before cutting his message off in mid-sentence and pausing for nearly an hour before continuing.
'Harry Reid was right in 1993, before he and the Democrats went insane,' Trump claimed, referring to a now-infamous Senate floor speech in which Reid, a Nevada Democrat and future Senate majority leader, blasted the practice of birthright citizenship.
+12
President Donald Trump says he wants to end the tradition of conferring U.S. citizenship on babies born inside the country's borders regardless of whether their parents are Americans
+12
Trump tweeted Wednesday that the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment only applies to people who aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S. – meaning in his view that babies born to people in the country illegally don't enjoy its benefits
+12
The president cited Democrat Harry Reid, who was a Nevada senator in 1993 when he said 'no sane country' would grant automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrant mothers
+12
Hundreds of thousands of babies are born each year to illegal immigrants parents in the United States, and the conventional reading of the 14th Amendment gives them all citizenship rights –– something Canada is the only other First World country to offer
'If making it easy to be an illegal immigrant isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again,' Reid said in 1993.
'If you break our laws by entering our country without permission to give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides, and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?'
In a typical year about 250,000 illegal immigrants give birth in the U.S., driving conservative Republicans to stoke controversy about their long-term impacts on welfare systems, education costs and other drivers of the national debt.
Current national policy stems from an 1898 Supreme Court ruling, but the high court has never spoken on the question of whether the 14th Amendment covers children born to people inside the U.S. illegally.
On Wednesday Trump suggested Democrats' conversion away from Reid's 1993 positon is tied to the party's acceptance of an 'open borders' philosophy 'which brings massive Crime.'
'Don’t forget the nasty term Anchor Babies,' he added. 'I will keep our Country safe. This case will be settled by the United States Supreme Court!'
+12
'If making it easy to be an illegal immigrant isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again,' Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid said in 1993, years before he became the Senate majority leader
Trump is unusual among American politicians for refusing to dance around the term 'anchor babies,' which refers to the practice of using an infant birth to establish a generations-long link to the U.S. – one that can later bring more family members in.
During one 2015 press conference in New Hampshire, he mocked a Hispanic reporter who challenged him to stop using what amounts to 'an offensive term.'
Trump asked what he should say instead, and was told: 'The American born child of undocumented immigrants.'
'You want me to say that every time?' the future president mocked, dismissing the request as 'politically correct.'
'I'll use the term "anchor babies",' he insisted.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, written in 1868, states that '[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are U.S. citizens.'
Debate has raged for 150 years about whether citizens of foreign countries are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. Some legal scholars believe that phrase only refers to hostile occupying armies and foreign diplomatic officials.
Republican leaders are split on whether Trump can end the tradition of birthright citizenship with an executive order, as he said in an interview Monday that he intends to do.
The vice president and the speaker of the House took opposite sides of the debate on Tuesday.
+12
House Speaker Paul Ryan insisted Tuesday that the White House can't use an executive order to change the government's interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
+12
Trump, shown leaving the White House on Tuesday with first lady Melania Trump, has given his anti-illegal-immigrant base some new red meat with the proposal, just a week before the midterm elections
Speaker Paul Ryan told a Kentucky radio interviewer that the White House would have to change the Constitution, which requires working with Congress, and couldn't act on its own.
'You obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,' Ryan said.
And in a sour look back at the 2012 beginnings of the DACA program, which spared hundreds of thousands of 'Dreamers' from deportation, Ryan noted that 'we didn’t like it when Obama tried changing immigration laws via executive action, and obviously as conservatives we believe in the Constitution.'
'As a conservative, I'm a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process,' he added. 'But where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting at the root issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration.'
Vice President Mike Pence insisted Tuesday that there's nothing unconstitutional about Trump declaring that an babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. will no longer automatically become American citizens.
'We all know what the 14th Amendment says,' Pence told Politico during an on-stage interview. 'We all cherish the language of the 14th Amendment.'
'But the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally,' Pence argued.
Trump said in an interview with Axios that he wants to sign an order ending the practice of awarding citizenship to children who conservatives have long termed 'anchor babies.'
+12
+12
Vice President Mike Pence said Tuesday that the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants; South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham tweeted that he'll introduce legislation mirroring Trump's executive order
+12
Graham sent a flurry of tweets agreeing with Trump's approach and offering to ingtroduce a bill that would codify it into law
Trump, who has long been critical of the practice, said: '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.'
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally on most issues but not always immigration questions, said in a series of tweets that he welcomes a change.
'Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship,' he said on Twitter. 'I’ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform – and at the same time – the elimination of birthright citizenship.'
'The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth. This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end,' he added.
Greham also tweeted that he will 'introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President.'
Trump insists he can change the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted by the federal government without amending the Constitution itself, and can do it through an executive order.
Several Republicans running for president in 2016, including Trump and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, argued at the time that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction' refers only to people with a legal right to be in the country.
In a preview of an HBO documentary scheduled to air on Sunday, Trump reveals that 'it was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't.'
During one 2015 press conference in New Hampshire, he mocked a Hispanic reporter who challenged him to stop using what amounts to 'an offensive term.'
Trump asked what he should say instead, and was told: 'The American born child of undocumented immigrants.'
'You want me to say that every time?' the future president mocked, dismissing the request as 'politically correct.'
'I'll use the term "anchor babies",' he insisted.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, written in 1868, states that '[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are U.S. citizens.'
Debate has raged for 150 years about whether citizens of foreign countries are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. Some legal scholars believe that phrase only refers to hostile occupying armies and foreign diplomatic officials.
Republican leaders are split on whether Trump can end the tradition of birthright citizenship with an executive order, as he said in an interview Monday that he intends to do.
The vice president and the speaker of the House took opposite sides of the debate on Tuesday.
+12
House Speaker Paul Ryan insisted Tuesday that the White House can't use an executive order to change the government's interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
+12
Trump, shown leaving the White House on Tuesday with first lady Melania Trump, has given his anti-illegal-immigrant base some new red meat with the proposal, just a week before the midterm elections
Speaker Paul Ryan told a Kentucky radio interviewer that the White House would have to change the Constitution, which requires working with Congress, and couldn't act on its own.
'You obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,' Ryan said.
And in a sour look back at the 2012 beginnings of the DACA program, which spared hundreds of thousands of 'Dreamers' from deportation, Ryan noted that 'we didn’t like it when Obama tried changing immigration laws via executive action, and obviously as conservatives we believe in the Constitution.'
'As a conservative, I'm a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process,' he added. 'But where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting at the root issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration.'
Vice President Mike Pence insisted Tuesday that there's nothing unconstitutional about Trump declaring that an babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. will no longer automatically become American citizens.
'We all know what the 14th Amendment says,' Pence told Politico during an on-stage interview. 'We all cherish the language of the 14th Amendment.'
'But the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th Amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally,' Pence argued.
Trump said in an interview with Axios that he wants to sign an order ending the practice of awarding citizenship to children who conservatives have long termed 'anchor babies.'
+12
+12
Vice President Mike Pence said Tuesday that the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants; South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham tweeted that he'll introduce legislation mirroring Trump's executive order
+12
Graham sent a flurry of tweets agreeing with Trump's approach and offering to ingtroduce a bill that would codify it into law
Trump, who has long been critical of the practice, said: '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.'
South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally on most issues but not always immigration questions, said in a series of tweets that he welcomes a change.
'Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship,' he said on Twitter. 'I’ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform – and at the same time – the elimination of birthright citizenship.'
'The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth. This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end,' he added.
Greham also tweeted that he will 'introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President.'
Trump insists he can change the way the 14th Amendment is interpreted by the federal government without amending the Constitution itself, and can do it through an executive order.
Several Republicans running for president in 2016, including Trump and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, argued at the time that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction' refers only to people with a legal right to be in the country.
In a preview of an HBO documentary scheduled to air on Sunday, Trump reveals that 'it was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't.'
+12
Trump's move came a week before midterm elections and after a second migrant caravan (pictured) crossed into Mexico on Monday
'You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order,' he adds.
'It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order.'
The president first articulated his position in August 2015, painting a mental picture for a Fox News Channel audience.
'What happens is, they're in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,' he said then, adding: 'I don't think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers, some would disagree. But many of them agree with me: You're going to find they do not have American citizenship.'
Some attorneys, he insisted, had advised him that 'It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested.'
By then the draw of birthright citizenship had become so powerful that an entire industry -- 'birth tourism' -- had spring up to take advantage.
The Washington Post reported that for between $40,000 and $80,000, some Asian women were flying to New York or California to stay at specialized 'hotels' outfitted like labor & delivery wards. The cost is worth it, they said, because their own application for legal residence would sail through because their babies would have U.S. citizenship.
Poorer women often just sneak across the border, dropping what critics call familial 'anchors.'
[h=3]A look at the 14th Amendment's 'anchor baby' clause[/h]President Trump says he wants to order the end of automatic citizenship for babies of illegal immigrants born in the United States.
The U.S. government has traditionally held that section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which contains the Citizenship Clause, guarantees that right for all children born on American soil.
WHAT DOES THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE SAY?
'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.'
The sentence that follows specifies citizen rights: '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.'
HOW DID IT GET IN THE CONSTITUTION?
Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. It was ratified on July 9, 1868 by three-fourths of the states.
The amendment effictively nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision – Dred Scott v. Sandford – which had held that people descended from slaves could not be citizens.
The amendment's opening sentence, which served to define its vocabulary, has become among the most controversial clauses in the entire Constitution.
+12
WHAT WAS THE GOAL OF REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS?
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified to help blacks, especially emancipated former slaves, have a chance to integrate into society after the American Civil War. Congress wanted to prevent the U.S. states where they lived from sidestepping the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and other Republicans to guarantee their rights to 'life, liberty and property.'
By 1868 Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had freed slaves in southern U.S. states, but they still didn't have the same constitutional rights as citizens. That legal limbo led to the formation of 'Colonization Societies' that sought to remove them from the nationcountry and send them either to Caribbean islands or to Africa.
Some southern states also enacted 'Black Code' laws in a bid to preserve the rights of slave-owners by calling their slaves 'apprentices' who couldn't be removed from their 'service.'
Ohio Republican Rep. John A. Bingham, a friend of President Lincoln, proposed the amendment to remedy these problems, writing specific language to guarantee that any slave born on American soil would retractively be declared a citizen.
Bingham wrote at the time that his text wasn't intended to create any new legal rights, but was 'simply a proposition to arm the Congress with the power to enforce the Bill of Rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It hath that extent – no more.'
WHY DO SOME THINK IT EXCLUDES ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' BABIES?
While the amendment was being debated, Michigan Republican Senator Jacob Howard, who drafted the amendment along with Bingham, said that was never his intention.
'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,' he said.
'It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States,' Howard added.
WAS THERE ANOTHER SIDE?
California Republican Sen. John Conness was concerned that U.S.-born children of the large number of Chinese immigrants in his state would end up with out American citizenship.
Conness declared in a debate that the amendment 'proposed to declare that they shall be citizens,' adding that 'I am in favor of doing so.'
That point wasn't debated, but Howard also didn't object to Conness's interpretation, which twenty-first century immigration advocates often cite as proof that birthright citizenship is constitutional.
WHAT HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID?
In 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude children of non-citizen immigrants.
That decision answered a narrow question, establishing that the 14th Amendment only guaranteed rights to people who were U.S. citizens, and didn't cover anyone who was only granted 'citizenship' by an individual U.S. state.
The majority opinion includes a note that 'the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to 'exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.'
Two years later the high court ruled that immigrants can only have automatic citizenship for their children when they – the adults – owe 'allegiance' to the U.S. and not to a foreign nation.
In 1898 the Supreme Court ruled that a specific Chinese immigrant's cihld was a citizen of the United States, citing the 14th Amendment's text. That decision has stood for 120 years, but it was decided decades before the concept of 'illegal aliens' was part of Americans' vocabulary.
More recently, at a dinner party in 2010, then-Justice Antonin Scalia said he believed Howard's original view was right – but for an unrelated reason.
He told his fellow guests that purposely including the words 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' suggested that people born in the U.S. weren't automatically citizens, especially if they were 'subject to the jurisdiction' of some other nation. He thought the words were included to rule out a large number of people.
Scalia, who died in 2016, allowed at the time that the way the modern U.S. interprets dual citizenships could also mean many people are be 'subject to the jurisdiction of' more than one country.
WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF TRUMP SIGNS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER?
If the president orders that the federal government must treat children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. as noncitizens, two things would likely happen.
States where Democrats control the legislatures and that have Democratic governors would quickly enact laws doing the opposite. And civil rightss groups would sue U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in federal court.
Whichever reaches a full bpoil first – the lawsuits or the question of the federal government's 'supremacy' over state laws – the whole thing will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
Trump has already appointed two justices, creating what some observers believe will be a 5-4 conservative majority. If that holds, Trump will win the debate and his order will stand.
A future Democratic president, however, could undo it – unless the Supreme Court were to declare that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution is correct, and not just that he had the legal right to issue the order.
The U.S. government has traditionally held that section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which contains the Citizenship Clause, guarantees that right for all children born on American soil.
WHAT DOES THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE SAY?
'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.'
The sentence that follows specifies citizen rights: '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.'
HOW DID IT GET IN THE CONSTITUTION?
Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. It was ratified on July 9, 1868 by three-fourths of the states.
The amendment effictively nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision – Dred Scott v. Sandford – which had held that people descended from slaves could not be citizens.
The amendment's opening sentence, which served to define its vocabulary, has become among the most controversial clauses in the entire Constitution.
+12
WHAT WAS THE GOAL OF REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS?
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified to help blacks, especially emancipated former slaves, have a chance to integrate into society after the American Civil War. Congress wanted to prevent the U.S. states where they lived from sidestepping the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and other Republicans to guarantee their rights to 'life, liberty and property.'
By 1868 Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had freed slaves in southern U.S. states, but they still didn't have the same constitutional rights as citizens. That legal limbo led to the formation of 'Colonization Societies' that sought to remove them from the nationcountry and send them either to Caribbean islands or to Africa.
Some southern states also enacted 'Black Code' laws in a bid to preserve the rights of slave-owners by calling their slaves 'apprentices' who couldn't be removed from their 'service.'
Ohio Republican Rep. John A. Bingham, a friend of President Lincoln, proposed the amendment to remedy these problems, writing specific language to guarantee that any slave born on American soil would retractively be declared a citizen.
Bingham wrote at the time that his text wasn't intended to create any new legal rights, but was 'simply a proposition to arm the Congress with the power to enforce the Bill of Rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It hath that extent – no more.'
WHY DO SOME THINK IT EXCLUDES ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' BABIES?
While the amendment was being debated, Michigan Republican Senator Jacob Howard, who drafted the amendment along with Bingham, said that was never his intention.
'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,' he said.
'It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States,' Howard added.
WAS THERE ANOTHER SIDE?
California Republican Sen. John Conness was concerned that U.S.-born children of the large number of Chinese immigrants in his state would end up with out American citizenship.
Conness declared in a debate that the amendment 'proposed to declare that they shall be citizens,' adding that 'I am in favor of doing so.'
That point wasn't debated, but Howard also didn't object to Conness's interpretation, which twenty-first century immigration advocates often cite as proof that birthright citizenship is constitutional.
WHAT HAS THE SUPREME COURT SAID?
In 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude children of non-citizen immigrants.
That decision answered a narrow question, establishing that the 14th Amendment only guaranteed rights to people who were U.S. citizens, and didn't cover anyone who was only granted 'citizenship' by an individual U.S. state.
The majority opinion includes a note that 'the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to 'exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.'
Two years later the high court ruled that immigrants can only have automatic citizenship for their children when they – the adults – owe 'allegiance' to the U.S. and not to a foreign nation.
In 1898 the Supreme Court ruled that a specific Chinese immigrant's cihld was a citizen of the United States, citing the 14th Amendment's text. That decision has stood for 120 years, but it was decided decades before the concept of 'illegal aliens' was part of Americans' vocabulary.
More recently, at a dinner party in 2010, then-Justice Antonin Scalia said he believed Howard's original view was right – but for an unrelated reason.
He told his fellow guests that purposely including the words 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' suggested that people born in the U.S. weren't automatically citizens, especially if they were 'subject to the jurisdiction' of some other nation. He thought the words were included to rule out a large number of people.
Scalia, who died in 2016, allowed at the time that the way the modern U.S. interprets dual citizenships could also mean many people are be 'subject to the jurisdiction of' more than one country.
WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF TRUMP SIGNS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER?
If the president orders that the federal government must treat children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. as noncitizens, two things would likely happen.
States where Democrats control the legislatures and that have Democratic governors would quickly enact laws doing the opposite. And civil rightss groups would sue U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in federal court.
Whichever reaches a full bpoil first – the lawsuits or the question of the federal government's 'supremacy' over state laws – the whole thing will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
Trump has already appointed two justices, creating what some observers believe will be a 5-4 conservative majority. If that holds, Trump will win the debate and his order will stand.
A future Democratic president, however, could undo it – unless the Supreme Court were to declare that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution is correct, and not just that he had the legal right to issue the order.
No magic involved. It's just the difference between a successful business manBut the days of magic wands are alive and well.
and a Harvard educated community organizer.
The difference between a man who wants to put America first and one who wanted
to destroy it.
The difference between a Christian and a Muslim.
Simply put the difference between good and evil.
