In the news, President Trump prepares an executive order to end birth tourism and birthright citizenship to children born on US soil but whose parents are not US citizens.
What is his authority?
Illegal aliens who “is not in possession of a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card at the time of application for admission, is inadmissible”
No period of time in which an alien is under 18 years of age shall be taken into account in determining the period of unlawful presence in the United States under clause (i).
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The Heritage Foundation
- Universal birthright citizenship is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment (“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.”) and is inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers.
- Based on the legislative history at the time, the 14th Amendment’s framers intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction, primarily the newly freed slaves, who were lawful permanent residents.
- Owing allegiance to the United States and being subject to its complete jurisdiction means being “not subject to any foreign power” and excludes those only temporarily present in the country.
- Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which challenged the government’s decision to deny re-entry to a U.S.-born child of foreign nationals who were legally present and permanently residing in the United States.
- Wong Kim Ark stands only for the narrow proposition that the U.S.-born children of lawful permanent resident aliens are U.S. citizens. It says nothing with respect to the U.S.-born children of illegal or non-permanent resident aliens.
- In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
- American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
- Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has clarified that the U.S.-born children of illegal or non-permanent resident aliens are U.S. citizens; federal law (8 U.S.C. §1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment.
- The president has the constitutional authority to direct executive agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause, and to direct agencies to issue passports, Social Security numbers, etc., only to those whose status as citizens is clear under the current law.
- Universal birthright citizenship creates a pull factor for illegal or benefit-seeking immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, the U.S. is rewarding and encouraging illegal and exploitative immigration.
- According to a Pew Research Center study, about 275,000 babies were born to unauthorized-immigrant parents in 2014. In that same year, there were 4.7 million U.S.-born children younger than 18 living with parents who are illegal immigrants. These numbers do not include U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants who aren’t living with their parents.
- Beyond the benefits the citizen child receives, the child can often get legal status for his or her parents, despite the illegal way the mother may have entered the U.S. This can occur through chain migration, whereby the citizen child can eventually sponsor his or her parents for a green card to the U.S., or because of special leniency given to the parents in the enforcement system or immigration courts in the interests of the citizen child.
- The United States also has a significant problem with birth tourism, where individuals with no intention of staying in the country long-term give birth to their children in the U.S. for the sole purpose of having a U.S. passport-holder in the family. This industry actively markets itself as providing all of the benefits of U.S. citizenship—in particular, reduced education costs and visa sponsorship.
- Only a handful of countries recognize birthright citizenship and none of the countries in the European Union do so.
President Trump repeatedly called on Congress to provide sensible immigration policy.
President Obama issued an executive order that created an unconstitutional immigration policy called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in the summer of 2012.
Acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the DACA executive order and the distress of young people who were brought to our country as children unlawfully, on 3 September 2017, President Trump announced a sunset on the DACA executive order and urged Congress to act by crafting appropriate legislation that would legalize DACA.
Although the unconstitutionality of the DACA executive order is patently obvious to the most casual reader of the Constitution and pertinent legislation, Federal Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, a Clinton appointee, opined the DACA program is not unconstitutional and shall remain in force.
“The court document explains declaring DACA unconstitutional is a “wrong conclusion” and considered the decision to eliminate the program as “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion,” for that reason it must be maintained.
The Latin Times, 14 February 2018: “The court does not see how an executive order taken ‘in accordance with an express or implicit authorization from Congress’ or ‘in the absence of a congressional decision or denial of authority,’ becomes unconstitutional simply because Congress has considered and not has enacted legislation that achieves similar goals,” the document highlights. “DACA is not unconstitutional simply because it was implemented by unilateral and executive action, without authorization from Congress,” the court said.”
Another ignorant, politically-motivated federal judge. Where do we start? Presidential power to issue executive orders comes from the Constitution, not from Congress. By this judge’s own words, the DACA executive order was unconstitutional. But a constitutional executive order that rescinds an unconstitutional executive order is not constitutional?
Under present Acts of Congress, actually law, the President may immediately deport illegal aliens from either Canada or Mexico, regardless of any applications for refugee status. But, he cannot immediately deport illegal aliens from any other country who apply for refugee status.
Do you see a problem with our immigration policies?
Got a moment?
Contact your Congressional Delegation to demand comprehensive reform of immigration policies.
In Texas CD-4, contact these members of Congress:
Call, write or send an email.
Republican government works when you make it work for you.