This blog post is political.
President Trump has commented that he is considering an Executive Order to stop giving automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. by illegal immigrants.
And the Left lost their minds.
I am fully behind the President in this decision and I think the Supreme Court would be too-if it came to that- because of course if Trump does this, the Left and even some on the Right will lose their minds and sue him in court. Not sure how it would work out...courts first or would Congress put a stop to it? Could they? Legally I have no idea who goes first-the chicken or the egg, but I am pretty sure that however it works out, it will be at some point in the courts.
My thought was that the current Supreme Court would support Trump's Executive Order (should this happen) because no one breaking the law (entering our country illegally) should be entitled to anything but deportation. By breaking our laws to enter the U.S. you should (in my opinion) lose the right to ever be a legal citizen (a resident perhaps-cause lets face it, we can't afford to deport tens of millions of illegals, but not a legal voting citizen).
Of course, I am practical that way. I don't believe in rewarding criminals.
Then Jack Posobiec on Twitter pointed out (and then others after him) the historic foundation that would be needed in court to back up such an Executive Order.
Here it is a bit easier to read...
At this point, even CNN had to concede Trump's got a real chance at making this happen- again, I believe because the current Supreme Court will back such an Executive Order and perhaps if the GOP gains more control in Congress (please God!🙏) there is a chance-tiny I know- that Congress could get on board too.
CNN quote: "On one side, supporters of birthright citizenship argue it was established by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and settled by the Supreme Court in 1898, when it held that children born in the United States, even to parents not eligible to become citizens, were nonetheless citizens themselves under that amendment.The language of the 14th Amendment by itself seems unambiguous:"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."But let's deconstruct that clause: Anyone [Born Here], plus ["Subject to Jurisdiction Thereof"]. The "being born here" part is clear, but what about the additional requirement of being "subject to jurisdiction [of the U.S.]"?That jurisdictional requirement of the citizenship clause is something you might just read over -- maybe because you got the gist of it at the "born" part of the clause, and just stopped reading. But it's there."[clipped]Courts and Congress? Should be interesting to watch if it happens.
"Does it instead mean the baby is subject to federal jurisdiction in the sense that the baby must abide by federal laws, like those prohibiting mail fraud or bank robbery? Saying out loud that babies must obey federal law seems just a bit unnecessary -- or insane.Many scholars point to that "jurisdiction" part of the citizenship clause, together with its history, and contemporary law as proof that citizenship is not a constitutional birthright, but something that the government can either giveth, or taketh away."[end]
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner