Over a century of legal precedent and a constitutional amendment would bar Trump from taking such an egregious action.
By Chris Walker ,
Published May 31, 202
3
Former President Donald Trump is seen arriving at Trump Tower on May 28, 2023, in New York City.
JAMES DEVANEY / GC IMAGES
On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump announced on his campaign site that, if he’s elected in 2024, on his first day back in the White House he’d issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship — an action that would be unconstitutional and likely face an immediate challenge in the courts.
“As part of my plan to secure the border, on Day One of my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” Trump said in a statement, wrongly asserting that current law was being interpreted incorrectly.
In addition to claiming without evidence that his executive action would “secure the border,” Trump’s campaign website also stated that the order would stop so-called birth tourism — a practice that is so rare it is often labeled as a myth.
The announcement by Trump came during the same week as an important legal anniversary directly related to the topic of birthright citizenship. It was this week 125 years ago, in the court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that the Supreme Court first recognized that the 14th Amendment established the legal right of people born in the country to be citizens.
The idea that Trump could change that precedent through an executive order (or anything short of a constitutional amendment) borders on the absurd. The amendment’s first sentence says:
RELATED STORY
On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump announced on his campaign site that, if he’s elected in 2024, on his first day back in the White House he’d issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship — an action that would be unconstitutional and likely face an immediate challenge in the courts.
“As part of my plan to secure the border, on Day One of my new term in office, I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law, going forward, the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” Trump said in a statement, wrongly asserting that current law was being interpreted incorrectly.
In addition to claiming without evidence that his executive action would “secure the border,” Trump’s campaign website also stated that the order would stop so-called birth tourism — a practice that is so rare it is often labeled as a myth.
The announcement by Trump came during the same week as an important legal anniversary directly related to the topic of birthright citizenship. It was this week 125 years ago, in the court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that the Supreme Court first recognized that the 14th Amendment established the legal right of people born in the country to be citizens.
The idea that Trump could change that precedent through an executive order (or anything short of a constitutional amendment) borders on the absurd. The amendment’s first sentence says:
RELATED STORY
OP-ED |
POLITICS & ELECTIONS
Amid Trump’s Legal Woes, Why Are His Business Ties to Saudi Arabia Overlooked?
POLITICS & ELECTIONS
Amid Trump’s Legal Woes, Why Are His Business Ties to Saudi Arabia Overlooked?
He’s openly helping the Saudi regime “sportswash” its human rights record while taking unknown millions from it.
By Heather Digby Parton , SALON
By Heather Digby Parton , SALON
May 26, 2023
Legal experts have suggested that, rather than being a serious promise to alter law, Trump’s call to end birthright citizenship is simply a dog whistle to appeal to xenophobic and bigoted far right members of his base of support.
“I think it’s pretty clear that, for political purposes, he thinks that this kind of announcement will appeal to his base,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University, speaking to CBS News on the matter. “It shows that he has anti-immigration credentials. And most of his voters don’t know or don’t care about whether such an executive order would be legal.”
Trump set off a firestorm of anger when he made a similar promise weeks before the 2018 midterms, stating in an interview with Axios that he’d soon make an executive order ending birthright citizenship, and that it’d be easy for him to do so in a purportedly legal way.
“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” Trump said incorrectly.
If Trump’s theory was true, it would render any section or amendment of the Constitution pointless, as presidents in the future could nullify it by decree.
Ultimately, Trump didn’t follow through on his pledge.
Fifteen professors from prestigious law schools throughout the U.S. blasted the former president in 2018 for suggesting he could ignore the rule of law and legal precedent, noting that there was “no serious scholarly debate about whether a president can, through executive action, contradict the Supreme Court’s long-standing and consistent interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.”
Civil and immigration rights groups also condemned Trump’s bigotry. Mijente, a Latinx rights organization, described his calls for ending birthright citizenship as a “barely-veiled assault on the rights of immigrants and other communities of color” that sought to rile up his base of voters before the 2018 midterms.
“[Trump] is using us for his political purposes right now — as scapegoats, as punching bags, as bogeymen and bogeywomen, as a collection of old stereotypes to be exploited for the benefit of sowing division and hate,” the group said.
Truthout is widely read among people with lower incomes and among young people who are mired in debt. Our site is read at public libraries, among people without internet access of their own. People print out our articles and send them to family members in prison — we receive letters from behind bars regularly thanking us for our coverage. Our stories are emailed and shared around communities, sparking grassroots mobilization.
We’re committed to keeping all Truthout articles free and available to the public. But in order to do that, we need those who can afford to contribute to our work to do so.
We’ll never require you to give, but we can ask you from the bottom of our hearts: Will you donate what you can, so we can continue providing journalism in the service of justice and truth?
This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.
CHRIS WALKER is a news writer at Truthout, and is based out of Madison, Wisconsin. Focusing on both national and local topics since the early 2000s, he has produced thousands of articles analyzing the issues of the day and their impact on the American people. He can be found on Twitter: @thatchriswalker
No comments:
Post a Comment