Trump says he will sign executive order ending ‘birthright’ citizenship


Donald Trump outlines his immigration policy in 2015 and compares his stance on birthright citizenship to that of Harry Reid.

Following up on a stance taken during his election campaign President Trump says he will sign an executive order ending so-called “birthright” citizenship.

According to CBS News, Trump told “Axios on HBO” he wants to “remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil.”

“How ridiculous, we’re the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,” the president was quoted as saying. “It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

During the campaign Trump released a position paper on immigration that also took a potshot at Nevada’s then-Sen. Harry Reid. “End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said ‘no sane country’ would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.”

Of course, Reid said in 1993 and, as with so many other positions over the years, he has since “evolved” to the opposite stance.

“If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee access to all public and social services this country provides,” Reid said on the floor of the Senate in 1993 in support of a bill that would eliminate so-called birthright citizenship. “Now that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense at county run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”

CBS quotes the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, as saying “all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens,” though they left out a phrase: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …”

CBS noted that the Supreme Court has upheld this rule for legal permanent residents, but has never decided a citizenship case involving an illegal immigrant or a short-term visitor to the U.S.

Birthright citizenship is the result of the 1898 Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in which the court ruled 5-4 that a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent is a citizen by virtue of birth under the 14th Amendment. At the time there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

It has been argued that Congress could overturn birthright citizenship, but can Trump with an executive order? There is sure to be litigation if Trump follows through on this.

Trump on HBO:

Reid in 1993:

35 comments on “Trump says he will sign executive order ending ‘birthright’ citizenship

  1. Deleted says:

    CBS left out a phrase more meaningless that the entirety of the 10th Amendment, or, at least according to many republicans the phrase regarding a well regulated militia.

    There is no person in the country that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the country.

    To believe otherwise would permit all those who are citizens of another country to act completely contrary to all our laws with the country being powerless to stop them.


  2. Then why did they put it in, if it is meaningless?

  3. John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and founding director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, explained the origin and meaning of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.

    “Historically, the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (like the rest of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) was derived so as to provide a more certain constitutional foundation for the 1866 Act, strongly suggests that Congress did not intend to provide for such a broad and absolute birthright citizenship,” Eastman said.

    “The 1866 Act provides: ‘All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.’ As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s parents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country, was not entitled to claim the birthright citizenship provided in the 1866 Act.”

  4. Rincon says:

    This all sounds fine in theory, but what happens to a baby born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant parents, who grows up and has to decide as he comes of age, whether to leave his family and everyone important to him to live the rest of his life in a country he’s never seen, or stay in his homeland and take his chances? I know what choice 99% of us would take. To toss him over the border upon discovery would be more cruel than kicking a dog, so it seems reasonable to allow a compromise for those children of illegals that have grown up here: Grant them renewable visas if they stay off the welfare rolls, maintain some minimum health coverage, and keep their noses clean, while they get in line to become citizens. This would remove much of the incentive for expecting mothers to cross the borders.

  5. Deleted says:

    It is a well established rule of Constitutional construction that intent is completely irrelevant to interpretation when the language is clear.

    If the language in the 2nd Amendment regarding a well regulated militia is superfluous as most on the right contend then why wouldn’t the language in the 14th about jurisdiction be superfluous since, as I said, everyone, in the US (and in some cases outside the US) IS subject to the jurisdiction of our laws?

    It’s silly to pretend that this phrase, regarding jurisdiction, is “unclear” enough so as to allow some “interpretation” that would eviserate at least part of the Amendment.

    And importantly the Dotard thinks that he can actually change the entire Constitution. It through the method demanded by the Constitution but rather though executive order which “constitutionalists” in the right, for at least 8 years while President Obama was in office, ,claimed spelled the end of our “beloved constitutional republic”.

    And now they cheer.

  6. Anonymous says:

    And I will say that if it’s “obvious” to even this guy, it must really be obvious.

    “House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Tuesday blasted President Trump’s stated push to eliminate birthright citizenship via executive order.

    “Well, you obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” Ryan told Lexington, Ky., radio station WVLK. “We didn’t like it when Obama tried changing immigration laws via executive action, and obviously as conservatives, we believe in the Constitution.””

  7. Athos says:

    JustMeAgain-Hmmmm? When it comes to crazy theories, I’ve always been partial to the 16th not getting the proper state wide votes. but then again, I’m not a big fan of the IRS. I’ve aways enjoyed the due process and a jury of your peers thing when it comes to the law.

    I say GO FOR IT PRESIDENT TRUMP! At least he gets the ball rolling on this travesty. The idea of having open borders (with the anchor baby policy) coupled with our generous welfare state, is suicide.

    And when is it noble and just to commit suicide?

  8. Rincon says:

    Who here said anything about open borders? That is considered a radical position, even among liberals.

    As for the 14th Amendment, isn’t this a bit like Native Americans asking to have the country back because it was theirs in the first place? It’s been 150 years. Get over it! If the Supreme Court was to nullify it – and I wouldn’t put it past them – we would instantly be propelled back into another civil war, forcing those of us enlightened enough to reject slavery the opportunity to once again kill off a bunch of those who are a little more, shall we say, limited. From a Darwinian standpoint, it might be beneficial in the long run, but it’s so messy. Better that you stay alive so that you can try to educate us about the benefits of the Confederate mentality.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Goes to show you how hypocritical people like Atholes are. Screaming about the Constitution and the tyranny of executive orders until some far right wing lunatic not only completely ignores what our “beloved founding fathers” said, but does what the right wing claimed was so wrong when a Democratic president took less egregious actions.

    Principles my azz.

  10. He said it would get the ball rolling, not that it really is OK.

  11. Deleted says:

    Actually he said:

    “GO FOR IT”

    More unmistakeable support can hardly be made out.

    And of course, it’s typically hypocritical for him or any other self professed “constitutionalist” to support such an anti constitutional way to change the law.

    Expected. But hypocritical.

  12. That just starts the process

    Sent from my iPhone


  13. Anonymous says:

    So an unconstitutional start is a good means to an end.

    Like I said, it’s hypocritical.

  14. Thomas Mitchell says:

    There must be grounds for courts to act.

  15. Anonymous says:


    And I expect all future responses from you regarding any use of executive orders, from all future democratic presidents to defer all claims of “unconstitutionality” on those grounds lest you be lumped in with…the less principled members here.

    I particularly look forward to this response when a democratic president, by executive order, makes the use of certain guns illegal based on an executive finding hat the Constitutions language about militias was to be taken literally because “there must be grounds for the courts to act”.

  16. Yes, and hopefully the courts will act promptly and constitutionally.

  17. Anonymous says:

    And what if they don’t? And what if they do, but as this president has done several times already merely 2 years into his presidency, he simply ignores what the courts say?

    And call me a traditionalist but isn’t the way to get something in front of a court, at least constitutionally anyway, to have the legislature pass a law and go from there?

  18. Anonymous says:

    So you support executive orders then? Since they work?

  19. No. Just stirring the pot. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  20. Athos says:

    Here’s what good old anny, (or is it deleted?) has no intention of acknowledging. President Trump (God, that sounds so good) has no intention of following the Marquis of Queensbury rules you anarchists have counted on conservatives obeying. PRESIDENT TRUMP is NOT Jorge W, or George 41, or Mittens Romney. He’s a street fighter that knows we’re in a battle for liberty, and freedom of the AMERICAN CITIZEN. AND you (progressive, socialist, globalist, elitist, leftist – pick one or all) have no intentions of fighting fair (see Kavanaugh hearings) because you can’t win on the merits of your beliefs!

    As I clearly stated before, it is national suicide to couple an open border policy with our generous welfare provisions. OF COURSE, it attracts all manner of people across the globe to take advantage of our loopholes. We, as a free citizenry, get to determine who gets in. Right?

    Trump is working to close that loophole.

    I approve.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Never heard the Constitution referred to quite that way before, but in event it does speak clearly to the contempt that the self professed “libertarians” have for the words of our “believed founding fathers”.

    Not that anyone ever doubted it, but here it is in all it’s reprehensible glory.

    “I fear for our republic”

  22. Anonymous says:

    “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”

    But…what about principles? What’s good for the goose may be good for the gander but what about principles?

  23. Athos says:

    Let me be clear for our conveniently obtuse friends (anny and rinny). Just because somebody is in our country (legal or illegally) and has a baby shouldn’t automatically make their kid a US Citizen. What do they have to gain? And more importantly, what do we (as US citizens) have to lose?

    Who was it that said, ” just follow the money?”

  24. Rincon says:

    I never advocated automatically making someone born in the U.S. a citizen. I said they should be granted visa status only under certain conditions so that they can wait in line for citizenship.

    Does anyone know if Mexico would accept as its citizen, someone born and raised in the U.S. who is discovered by authorities at say, age 40? If not, we then would have a person without a country. How do you think that should be handled?

    As for the Goose and Gander. To criticize Obama, but not Trump for questionable executive orders looks inconsistent to me. Partisan, perhaps?

  25. Athos says:

    What did Zero tell McShamnesty back in the day? Oh yeah, “I won. Deal with it”

  26. Rincon says:

    The battle was won. The war goes on.

  27. Anonymous says:

    What did Drumph say back in the days following a President Obamas election?

    Donald J. Trump

    The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
    9:45 PM – Nov 6, 2012

    Donald J. Trump

    The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
    9:45 PM – Nov 6, 2012

    Donald J. Trump

    We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!
    9:29 PM – Nov 6, 2012

  28. Athos says:

    You elitist America Hating ignoramuses wouldn’t know the original intent of the 14th Amendment if it was spoon fed to you! Look at the time line. Look at what was going on in America 1866. And then try to peddle your pap about the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments pertained to anchor babies.

    Percy Garris : “Morons. I’ve got morons on my team.”

  29. Rincon says:

    Elitist America Hating ignoramuses? Athos, I owe you an apology. I’ve been addressing you as an adult all this time. You’re apparently much younger than I thought!

  30. JustMeAgain says:

    The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to create a new type of national citizenship, and to eventually weaken and eliminate state citizenship and states’ rights.

    I’m not a lawyer, but perhaps this would have been simpler: “All current or former slaves within the United States are hereby freed and given full citizenship in the state in which they reside. All natural rights and liberties shall be guaranteed by that citizenship. No citizen of any state may legally own another person.”

  31. Rincon says:

    You may be onto something there. Nevertheless, a stronger national identity is probably a good thing. Take away the power of our federal government and we would soon become a loose affiliation of nation-states, sort of like the European Union. I don’t think I would like that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s