*The nationalist president wants to strip US Citizenship from US Citizens. WARNING! Once the door is open Ö walks through. OK so the argument will be that the president wants to strip citizenship from children born in the US of non-citizen parents. The final language of the proposed executive order will be critical. There are many groups in the US that will challenge such an order and a case will eventually be at the Supreme Court where the president wants the argument to be settled. Who is a US Citizen? will be the question before the Court and how that decision is handed down will affect the future of the USA.
*If it goes the other way it is possible that children born in the US of immigrants holding legal permanent resident visas are deemed to be non-citizens. So what would happen if the country of the parent does not recognize a child born in the US as a citizen in the parentís country? The child would in effect have no citizenship in any country.
*Today the president attacked legal immigration directly. How this citizenship issue is resolved will affect millions of people living in the US legally and may be multiple generations.
Shapiro mentioned that he doesn't directly have the power to stop the "law of the soil", but the way I read about it earlier, the POTUS tweet and the hype about it was about making sure that a child born to ILLEGAL immigrants ONLY would be ineligible for the law of the soil because their parents didn't follow due process. I didn't read anything about stripping those who already have law of the soil citizenship of it, or of stopping those who followed the rules from having their kids automatically become US citizens because they were born here. Seriously, the First Lady of the United States immigrated here from another country, LEGALLY. There is absolutely no way her husband is just gonna go around revoking people's citizenships. I'm not even sure that'd even be Constitutional. But I don't think he'd try. Any presumed attack on legal immigration was probably just a measure to stem the tide from the pending invasion force. I'm quite reasonably sure he's in support of the immigration process when it's done properly, and also that he's well aware the process needs to be streamlined. That's no excuse to let terrorists hop the fence and demand a free lunch though, and he knows that too.
The way I read it, all he wants to do is prevent further "law of the soil" citizenships of kids born to illegal immigrants, so when those here illegally get deported(because they didn't follow the rules, not because "oh, heartless American"...that they apparently wanna become), the whole family goes together, instead of "should we keep the kids here? I mean, they were born here, so they're technically citizens...."
This would of course be appealed to the Supreme Court, which would uphold or strike down the so far hypothetical order, thereby legitamizing or nullifying a potentially effective deterrent to immigration that could set a dangerous precedent to executive power.
The president CANNOT, with an executive action end "Jus Soli" or "rule of soil". The Supreme Court CANNOT uphold an executive action attempting such. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
According to our bill of rights, any person born within our borders, naturalized in the U.S., or "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (Puerto Rico) they are citizens of the U.S. and no laws can be made that deny them Due process, equal protections, or any other constitutional rights. There are no qualifiers for "born to legal immigrants" or "unless born to illegal immigrants". The text is what it is and must be interpreted as it is written. The Supreme Court already set that precedent in rulings on other constitutional amendments. (Heller v DC is one)
Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, which can only be done through the congress, and then ratified by two thirds of the states.
I agree that with this statement and action that Trump has directly attacked both legal immigration and our constitutional bill of rights. However, to think that his actions would stand in court is a stretch. And, if it did go to the supreme court and was upheld it would be grounds to impeach every justice on the court. They are all aware of this. Trump can sign whatever he wants to about Jus Soli. It will be struck down by a court before the ink is even dry on his executive order.
He knows this, but also knows it will appeal to certain portions of our society and galvanize their vote. Likewise the Democrats know that this will never stand, but will sound every alarm they have because it will galvanize their vote. In doing so, both parties only have to pander to the middle ground voters, that they can then blow off after an election because they now have an imaginary "mandate". repeat repeatedly until we are back where we started. Doesn't anyone else see this? At what point do you choose to stop being a pawn in a political game?