What percent of the instances will be prevented using this approach?
Clay Travis explains the legal aspects of birthright citizenship and the historic basis for it. He explains Trump’s approach might spur the Supreme Court to deliver a better decision in the future:
Clay Travis is nothing if not superficial. The birthright thing derives entirely from the 14th Amendment interpretation. Indians, blacks, & Chinese born in the US before Lincoln’s War were not regarded as US citizens. And Indians and Chinese were still not regarded as citizens even after the 14th Amendment. (There’s an interesting instance ~1880 when a black US Senator voted against extending any rights to Chinese working on the railroad.)
He’s always bragging about being a lawyer. The interesting thing I wish they had discussed was the goodness of Steven Miller’s employment of that statute, which prima facie sounds good to me.
It sounds, J. Sobran, as if birthright citizenship was applied unevenly, even after it was codified in the 14th amendment.
I really hope there is a way to overcome this Supreme Court decision. But if it is based on the activities of any particular presidential administration, it will be gone the next time the socialists take power.
I heard that Trump was going to issue some Executive Orders denying citizenship to foreign babies born in the USA. What do you know about this plan, TC ?
I am not sure about any others, Fred. You might be right, and if so, I look forward to hearing about it. What Stephen Miller describes is a start.
Fred, what Stephen Miller said was that if people put on their Visa application that their purpose for going to the US is “tourism” and then they have a baby in a US hospital, they will have committed fraud. That seems like a reasonable angle to me. But with US courts, everything is a crap shoot.
That’s an understatement, J. Sobran.