Opinion: Trump Plans To Delete A Part Of The Constitution For His Racist Base

[634-5789]

tRump’s latest outrage, and it is a bonafide outrage, is his pledge to delete part of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment by issuing an executive order banning “birthright citizenship;” his racist and xenophobic supporters demanded drastic action to make America a white Aryan Utopia; as if that would do the deed.

For the uninformed, the 14th Amendment guarantees that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen. Like the rest of the Founding Document, Trump thinks the Amendment is bad. It is noteworthy that most Republicans and certainly most evangelical fanatics also believe the 14th Amendment is bad simply because it gives every American equal protections of the laws.

Republicans don’t like the idea of people of color having the same rights as their white counterparts, particularly voting rights. And, religious extremists vehemently disagree with the idea that as citizens of the United States, members of the LGBTQ community and women have equal rights.


https://www.politicususa.com/2020/11/28/opinion-trump-plans-to-delete-a-part-of-the-constitution-for-his-racist-base.html

[FreepFryer]

1. Any idea why this Trump threat from Oct 2018 is now current?

The only source in the article,

“latest outrage”

results in a link to an article from October 2018.

Did Trump issue the order? Not sure why this is current.

[Tanuki]

3. Yes. This article is from Nov. 20:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/526950-trump-administration-revives-talk-of-action-on-birthright-citizenship

..."The Trump administration has revived discussions around taking executive action targeting birthright citizenship in its final weeks before leaving office, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

President Trump has spoken throughout his first term about ending birthright citizenship. Drafts of a possible order have been circulating for some time, and there is now internal discussion about finalizing it before the Biden administration takes over in January, sources said.

The administration is aware the order would be promptly challenged in court, but officials would hope to get a ruling on whether birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment, according to one source familiar with the plans. Many lawmakers and experts have argued it is protected, but the courts have not definitively ruled on it."....(more)

[FreepFryer]

5. Nice, thanks Tenuki! (Nt)

[Volaris]

13. Omg so stupid. Literally, this sums up how dumb they are.

Trump Idiots 'Were not sure birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th Amendment.'


14th Amendment: 'All persons born...in the united states...are citizens...'

It's the first fucking sentence. Just because they didnt READ the freakin thing, doesnt make the rest of us wrong.

[beachbumbob]

2. laughable. If EO could do this no need of a constitution

[Amishman]

4. Old article but there has been some rumbling about this

Unfortunately it is not as cut and dry as that article suggests.

The section of the 14th amendment 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.'

The possible wrinkle is the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' caveat.

This falls into a gray area between prior supreme rulings. United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That ruling interpreted the jurisdiction clause referred to being required to obey U.S. law. This is where it could be challenged. If the parents did not enter the country through approved channels, they would be in defiance of U.S. law - opening this to attack.

Not saying this is correct, but it is a gray area they could exploit.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Being in defiance of U.S. law does not render someone not subject to US jurisdiction

Under that argument, any person born in the United States who has broken a law - say, failed to pay taxes or a criminal fine - could be deemed not subject to US law and therefore deemed a non-citizen.

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language originally applied to everyone but three categories of persons present in the country who were not considered to be subject to US jurisdiction: 1) foreign sovereigns; 2) foreign ambassadors; and 3) foreign military personnel.

That said, I would not want to test this under the current Supreme Court since I don't trust at least five of them any further than I could throw them.

[Amishman]

10. I didn't explain it well, let me try again

US law would prohibit their presence due to lack of legal status. Intentional non-enforcement of this prohibition is having them not subject to U.S. law on immigration, and outside the 14th.

Not saying I agree with this - and it has an interesting wrinkle that denying birthright citizenship on this ground is essentially permitting them to remain. As soon as they attempt to enforce deportation, they are holding them subject to US law and thus their children citizens under the 14th. The Trumpers wouldn't like that part.

[StarfishSaver]

12. I understand the position. But like you, I don't agree with it

And the Schrödinger's Cat aspect of it is very interesting, isn't it?

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Like his EO can override the Constitution.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. An Executive Order that would last until January 20.

Talk about an exercise in futility.

[NurseJackie]

9. I misread... I thought it said "Onion" instead of "Opinion"

... for a brief moment, I thought it was satire.

[LiberalFighter]

11. To make it easy. I would put out an EO revoking all EO's signed...

between November 3 until noon Jan 20.