They’ll probably argue that someone who is in the country illegally isn’t technically “in” the country.
That’s what they’ll argue. The question is whether a majority of the court will buy it.
He has in the past, but in some of his decisions and dissents, he’s found ways to go directly against the Constitution if it supports his ideology. Supreme Court Justices, if nothing else, are incredible lawyers, and as such, they can justify anything they want, even if it directly contradicts their stated “ideology” and judicial philosophy.
Here’s just the latest example:
“During his decade on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch built his reputationas a skeptic of the “administrative state,” those executive branch agencies tasked with implementing federal law. He is an outspoken critic of the rule that courts should defer to these agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes…Apparently not. Instead of sticking to his principles, Gorsuch is running interference for the Trump administration, urging the courts to let the administrative state misapply federal law and then suppress all evidence under the guise of privilege. That’s a disappointing departure from the justice’s legal philosophy—one that seems tailored to let Wilbur Ross sabotage the census in an effort to entrench Republican power for a decade.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/17/immigration-ruling-gorsuch-528749 Yea but on Immigration he tends towards his libertarian ideals.
True, but my point is that he can weasel his way out of anything if he wants, so I’m not relying on him in the hypothetical case against birthright citizenship the way I kind of am with Roberts.
On the kind of bright side, most of the political pundits seem to think that this is just Trump BSing prior to the elections, similar to other things he’s talked about doing in the past that he won’t actually follow through on.
One thing to keep in mind is just how far is Trump willing to go with the birthright citizenship thing if he were to actually follow-through. Would it be constrained to those whose parents were here illegally? Would it be retroactive? Would it be constrained to all children of non-citizens, even if said non-citizens were here legally? All of those issues could complicate the matter.
I hope this is just a political thought experiment and not really what will happen, but let’s examine the broadest possible executive order: all children of non-citizens, even those who were here legally, lose their birthright citizenship retroactively with no time limit – essentially revoking the 14th Amendment by fiat. Clarence Thomas would then lose his citizenship, given that his ancestors were non-citizen slaves. Kavanaugh and Alito, given how the Irish and Italians were relatively recent immigrants to the country, also may lose their citizenship if it is shown any of their ancestors were not born to naturalized citizens and subsequently naturalized. The craziness this could cause is boundless. The thing is, Trump might be wacko enough to do something crazy like this.
Given the questionable legality of Ivana Trump’s and Melania Trump’s own citizenship, Trump’s own children could have their citizenship stripped from them as well.
You mean the one he ignores, or the one he said he should’ve aborted?
Trump’s three oldest children, Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka, are all from his first wife, and he appears to care about them, at least to some degree.
To be fair, I am personally scared by this as I’m not sure if I’d end up losing my birthright citizenship depending on how all this goes down. While both my parents were here legally when I was born, I don’t know about my mom’s citizenship status at the time (though I could ask her – I just haven’t gotten around to it yet). I know for a fact my dad wasn’t naturalized yet as he got naturalized in the 90’s.
Even if they decided to end birthright citizenship there is literally no way they would retroactively remove everyone who received it already.
Maybe with his time as Speaker growing short, Paul Ryan is finally growing a spine?
"…House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) also dismissed the idea during a radio interview, saying it is not consistent with the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
“Well you obviously cannot do that,” Ryan said on WVLK in Kentucky. “You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order. Ryan also said that Republicans did not like it when President Barack Obama changed immigration policy by executive action and that altering the Constitution would be a lengthy process.”
Don’t be so sure. They’ve already been retroactively removing citizenship of people born near the Texas/Mexico border due to “irregularities” in their birth certificates.
That said, okay, confirmed with my mom that she was already naturalized by the time I was born. So while it makes it a smidge less personal, I’m still taking it very personally as I feel a very strong kinship with all immigrants due to my background.
The real issue is that this is a clear lob to the core base of the Republican Party: abject racists.
No one is denying that.
It also further legitimizes racist citizens to treat any POC within their particular racist wheelhouse as illegitimate, including harassment, violence, and weaponized law enforcement. It reinforces the idea that to be American, one must not only be a citizen but a white citizen. Sure retroactive removal of all citizenship would be an insurmountable task, but as current enforcement proves, application is never equal. It increases the psychological threat against POC citizens, who currently can be picked up by ICE, deported etc. if profiled and not carrying documentation – now the nation’s supposedly utmost documentation is potentially not good enough, and challengeable, at the whims of a overwhemingly corrupt government. The risks of this hanging on possibly one man, totally not concerned .
This is why I started traveling with my passport whenever I leave home.
Thinly veiled white supremacy, aimed at removing all protections for minority groups under the guise of “Freedom”, because after the Ron Paul newsletters gig, they learned for at least a while that the “To be bigots without repercussion” bit that follows that cry of “freedom” is the bit you say real quiet?
Not sure Gorsch is a Ron Paul disciple.
Shrug Doesn’t really matter, most libertarians aren’t that far different. The biggest difference is that the Ron Paul crowd have a habit of saying the quiet part real loud.