Trump is considering a decree to end citizenship

President TrumpDonald John Trump, Mayor of Pittsburgh: Our priority is funerals and not Trump's visit. Trump says he'll answer Mueller's "some" questions. Trump: "Dishonest" to say that I called all the media "the enemy of the people".The new astonishing promise to end citizenship by decree is pending at the eleventh hour of the mid-term debate, fueling the flames of an already explosive fight for immigration – and dividing the Republican message carriers – a few days barely before voters go to the polls.

Many legal experts argue that there is virtually no chance that the president's unilateral attempt to re-imagine 150 years of constitutional law will stand up to scrutiny by courts, even with two new Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices a new conservative approach to the highest judiciary in the country.

On the political front, however, the tactic seems tailor-made to reinvigorate the conservative GOP base with an anti-immigrant message – a message that introduced Trump to the White House in 2016 – while Republicans strive to avoid a blue wave in next week's elections.

Yet, if the intention was to unify the Republicans before polling day, it started badly on Tuesday, as a number of GOP lawmakers quickly rejected Trump's assertion. that the president would have the power to override a central principle of US immigration law – a constitutional enshrinement – without congressional action.

"You can not end citizenship with an executive order," said the president Paul RyanPaul Davis RyanGOP, Dems offers very different closing arguments for mid-term exams Paul Ryan: Sometimes Trump practices the unification of politics, sometimes he does not do it (R-Wis.) Said during an interview with Lexington, Ky, WVLK radio. "We did not like when [former President] Obama has tried to change the laws on immigration through action on the part of the executive and, of course, as conservatives, we believe in the Constitution. "

Ryan was barely alone. Indeed, Capitol Hill Republicans have shown no support for the executive order promised by Trump. The main allies of the president – including representatives. Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthyShots was fired back in the GOP office in Florida while the unoccupied Republican was criticized for sharing Pelosi's comments about "collateral damage" after Trump complained that Twitter removed people from his account. (R-Calif.), Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsPapadopoulos asks for immunity before possible testimony in the Senate Papadopoulos is considering withdrawing from the plea agreement reached with Mueller The conservatives say that Papadopoulos' testimony reinforces the belief that it does not exist. there is no collusion MORE (N.C.) And Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanHouse Republicans postpone Rosenstein interview Nellie Ohr spouses privilege when meeting with members of the Chamber of Deputies. MORE (R-Ohio) – all refused to weigh. And other prominent Republicans warned early on that the elimination of citizenship based on the birthright would require an act of Congress, at the very least.

"I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it would take a constitutional amendment to change that as opposed to an executive order," Sen. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest Grassley Grassley is now "nonchalant on the defense of the sessions" if Trump replaces him. Grassley again refers Avenatti to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation Critics are wrong about the First Step Act that can fix the criminal justice system MORE (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, assigned a CBS member from his home country.

The few Congressional Republicans intervene as Mr. Trump stepped up his relentless attacks on immigrants in the run-up to the mid-term – an extension of his election promise to build a "handsome" border wall and, more recently , administrative efforts to speed up deportations, reduce refugee quotas and send thousands of soldiers to the southern border to show their deflecting force against a "caravan" of Central American migrants en route to the United States, many of whom are seeking refuge. asylum because of the violence in their country of origin.

Trump's efforts have been widely praised by Republicans in Congress; their adherence to Trump's vow to end citizenship based on the birthright suggests certain limits to the unilateral policies of coercion they are willing to accept from their ally in the White House.

"Citizenship is legally protected by the Constitution," tweeted the representative. Carlos CurbeloCarlos Luis CurbeloBloomberg Quietly Spends Millions of Ads on TV Social Media Threatened to Death US Lawmaker GOP Says Republican Republican Follow Trump's Advance on Immigration MORE, a Republican advocate of immigration reform faces tough reelection in South Florida. "What we really need is a broad immigration reform that strengthens the security of our country and reaffirms our wonderful tradition as an immigrant nation."

Trump sees a different legal landscape. In an interview with Axios, some of whose parts were released on Tuesday, the president has asserted the power to revoke the citizenship rights of children born in the United States to people illegally in the country. And he swore to do that.

"It has always been said that a constitutional amendment is needed. Guess what? You do not do it, said Trump. "We are the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years and enjoys all these benefits."

However, more than 30 other countries recognize citizenship.

"It's ridiculous and you have to finish," he added. "It's in the process. It will happen, with an executive order. "

This assertion contradicts a fundamental doctrine of constitutional law, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, which since 1868 has guaranteed that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to their jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and their country of residence. "

The amendment overruled the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 11 years earlier, who had concluded that slaves and their descendants were not citizens of the United States.

The Democrats took the opportunity to introduce Trump both heartless in immigration policy and ignoring the separation of powers rooted in the founding documents of the nation. To drive the point home, Rep. Gerry ConnollyGerald (Gerry) Edward ConnollyDems split on Pelosi Dems' "transient" presidential speech looks into Trump's alleged conflicts of interest is more involved in blocking the sale of FBI headquarters than originally planned: Dems PLUS (D-Va.) Sent to the president a copy of the Constitution.

"Knowing your dislike of reading, I've highlighted the 14th Amendment for your convenience," Connolly said. "We respect this sacred text in America."

Lawyers, meanwhile, have lost little time in rejecting the claim of Trump's executive power in this situation.

Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard University, said in an email that the president could not further eliminate birthright citizenship "that he could not erase the first amendment (or the second, from elsewhere) ".

"Even Trump and his lawyers surely realize that this far-fetched threat has the weakest possible legal basis and is unlikely to win votes, even from the strongest judicial conservatives," said Tribe. "And they must also understand that this threat, though legally almost empty, is still a source of fear in the hearts of a large number of legal immigrants and current citizens, both naturalized and born."

Stephen Legomsky, Chief Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship and Immigration Services Branch under the Obama administration, has issued a similar message, saying the promise promised by Trump was "clearly unconstitutional" – and designed to produce a political effect.

"People see this as another part of Trump's total war against immigrants," Legomsky said by phone, now a professor emeritus at the University of Washington Law School. "I think it goes further than that, because it's the first time that he's declaring war on American citizens born in the country."

Legal experts also point to a decision of the Supreme Court of 1898, US c. Wong Kim Ark, who rejected the idea that a clause of the 14th amendment – "subject to the jurisdiction of this one" – means that the protections apply only in the country legally. Instead, the judges decided that only two populations were excluded: the children of foreign diplomats and the enemy occupiers.

"The Federal Immigration Act defines citizenship in accordance with this ruling," said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. "The president should therefore seek to redefine both a federal law and the 14th amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Even though he has some ability to do the first one, he has no one to do the last one. "

In the midst of waves of criticism, several voices spoke out in favor of Trump's urging to abandon citizenship based on the birthright – at least in his concept.

Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGraham: A GOP victory in a Missouri Senate race would show "the Kavanaugh affair is dead" Graham: The only people who challenge me "will turn the country into a crowd" Erdogan asks to the # Saudi Arabia to reveal who gave the order to kill Khashoggi MORE (R-S.C.) Said Tuesday it intends to submit a proposal to achieve Trump's goal in legislation. Be p. Bob GoodlatteRobert (Bob) William GoodlatteDems calls for an emergency hearing following attacks sparked by "views of white supremacy" The Hill & # 39; s 12:30 Report: Sending Explosives in Obamas, Clintons, CNN | White House condemns attempts by Republican Republicans to attack: Rosenstein interview (R-Va.), Speaker of the Judiciary Committee of the House, congratulated Trump for "talking about this important issue".

"We will look at it when it will be released," Goodlatte said in an email, referring to the decree. "However, it will be necessary to solve the problem in the long term through a congressional action."