The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial board slammed President Donald Trump’s proposed unconstitutional executive order to end all birthright citizenship with a new op-ed.
“Mr. Trump has the political high ground as long as he is trying to stop lawlessness or deter migrant caravans mobilized by left-wing groups in Central America. Even deploying soldiers to the border in nonmilitary roles can be justified to assist immigration agents overwhelmed by asylum seekers. The U.S. has to send a signal that no one can bum-rush the border—not least to deter migrants from making a trip that will end in disappointment, or worse,” wrote the board.
“By contrast, the birth citizenship gambit puts Mr. Trump on the wrong side of immigration law and politics,” the board added.
Trump initially floated the executive order during an interview with Axios, a news outlet which released a video of the exchange on Tuesday. Some of his strongest allies Capitol Hill, like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), quickly joined in support of the racist and illegal proposal. The president was fearmongering about a group of several thousands Central American migrants who are making their way to America, saying with absolutely no evidence that some of them are “gang members.”
The many critics of the evil plan, including the Wall Street Journal, say that it would directly violate the 14th Amendment, which says: “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.”
“The jurisdiction of U.S. law surely applies to all immigrants, or they could not be prosecuted for breaking even immigration laws. As for owing allegiance, do we really want to set a precedent that has the government defining which American residents owe allegiance to the U.S. and which don’t? What would that mean for American citizens who are also citizens of another country?” wondered the Journal’s editorial board in response to the lie spread by racist anti-immigration conservatives that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to undocumented immigrants.
The Journal explained that Trump’s illegal executive order would be almost instantly overturned by the courts, and the immigration debate had been mishandled by Republicans’ failure to trade increased border security for full legal status for young immigrants who are protected by the crucial Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly called Dreamers.
“Instead he wanted the political issue, and we’ll soon see how well that worked. The President still stands on firm legal and political ground when he fights sanctuary cities or the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But he undermines his legal standing, and his political credibility, when he pulls a stunt like single-handedly trying to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment,” wrote the editorial board.
While the U.S. explicitly Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the children of undocumented immigrants are protected by the 14th Amendment, it wrote back in 1898, “the 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.”