The discussion kicks off with Trump's controversial remarks on birthright citizenship, prompting a dive into the historical roots of the 14th Amendment. Legal experts weigh in on the proposal's viability, sparking debate from diverse political perspectives. The implications for millions of U.S.-born children are explored, raising moral and ethical dilemmas. Additionally, significant national and global news updates accentuate the broader context, including FBI resignations and international ceasefire efforts, showcasing the complex landscape of current affairs.
Trump's proposal to end birthright citizenship highlights significant ideological divides regarding immigration policies and constitutional interpretations in the U.S.
Legal experts doubt Trump's ability to change birthright citizenship through executive action, emphasizing the strong legal precedents established by the 14th Amendment.
Deep dives
Understanding Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship in the United States encompasses two main forms: 'jus soli' (birthplace-based citizenship) and 'jus sanguinis' (ancestry-based citizenship). The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to all individuals born in the U.S., which was affirmed in the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. President Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship, claiming it is a practice unique to the U.S. and suggesting that executive action could be taken, despite legal experts questioning whether such actions would hold up in court. The ongoing discussion raises questions about the impact of changing the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the complexities surrounding citizenship for children born to non-citizen parents.
Diverse Opinions from the Political Spectrum
Opinions about Trump's proposal vary significantly across the political spectrum. Some right-leaning commentators argue that Trump could legally justify curtailing birthright citizenship and view it as a necessary aspect of his immigration agenda, linking it to broader issues like national security and sovereignty. In contrast, left-leaning voices assert that birthright citizenship is constitutionally mandated and cannot be revoked through executive order, emphasizing its role in protecting the rights of all individuals born in the U.S. This ideological divide highlights the deeper implications of proposals aimed at changing long-standing interpretations of citizenship laws.
Challenges of Implementing Change
Trump's assertion that he would seek to end birthright citizenship through executive action faces substantial legal and political hurdles. Many constitutional scholars believe that any attempt to alter birthright citizenship would likely be challenged in the courts, given the established precedent of Wong Kim Ark. Furthermore, amending the Constitution is a complex process requiring significant political consensus, which currently appears unattainable. These challenges underscore the difficulty of enacting such a fundamental change in U.S. citizenship laws, despite ongoing debates about their validity.
The Debate on Political Allegiance and Jurisdiction
The discussion surrounding the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' in the 14th Amendment plays a pivotal role in the birthright citizenship debate. Some legal scholars argue that unauthorized migrants may not fall under U.S. jurisdiction due to their illegal status, potentially excluding their children from automatic citizenship. However, counterarguments highlight that children born in the U.S. often identify as American, regardless of their parents' immigration status, complicating notions of allegiance and citizenship. These differing interpretations reveal unresolved tensions in the legal framework governing citizenship and the implications for families of undocumented immigrants.
On Sunday, President-elect Donald Trump gave his first network television interview since the election, speaking with NBC's Kristen Welker for Meet The Press. During the interview, Trump said he would seek to end birthright citizenship, possibly through executive action, calling the practice “ridiculous” and saying the U.S. is the only country that grants the right. Legal experts doubt that the president has the power to curtail birthright citizenship, but Trump’s transition team has indicated it will attempt to do so as one of his first executive actions when he returns to office.
Ad-free podcasts are here!
Many listeners have been asking for an ad-free version of this podcast that they could subscribe to — and we finally launched it. You can go to tanglemedia.supercast.com to sign up! You can also give the gift of a Tangle podcast subscription by clicking here.
You can read today's podcast here, our “Under the Radar” story here and today’s “Have a nice day” story here.
Take the survey: What do you think about ending birthright citizenship? Let us know!
Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.
Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.