(National Sentinel) Interpretation: President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is just his way of making sure the Constitution’s 14th Amendment if properly interpreted from here on, a constitutional expert told Fox News‘ Laura Ingraham Tuesday night.
“There’s actually two requirements for automatic citizenship: You’ve got to be born on U.S. soil, and you have to be subject to the jurisdiction,” Prof. John Eastman, the Henry Salvatori professor of law and community service and former dean at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, said. “And [Democrats] just read that last clause out of the Constitution as if it’s not there, or as if it means the same thing as being physically present here.”
The Left has merely “misunderstood one of the clauses in the Constitution,” he said, adding that POTUS Trump “just wants to get the Constitution right.”
“So the children of citizens, the children of lawful permanent residents — they’re automatically citizens if they’re born here. But the children of temporary visitors or people who overstay their visas, and certainly the children of people who are not even lawfully present in the United States at all, are not automatically citizens, according to the Constitution,” Eastman told Ingraham.
On Tuesday, Axios reported that the president mentioned during an interview with “Axios on HBO” that he was planning to issue an executive order that ended birthright citizenship — the automatic granting of citizenship to children of non-citizens and illegal immigrants.
The Left argues that the 14th Amendment makes clear that all persons born on U.S. soil are automatically granted citizenship, but a growing number of constitutional experts say a clear reading of the citizenship clause in Section 1, as well as historical documentation, prove that was never the intention.
The first part of Section 1 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.
The highlighted section above is what the experts, including Eastman, are talking about. That section makes it clear that non-citizens and others in the country illegally are still ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of their home countries, not the United States.
Eastman wrote a piece for The New York Times in December 2015 called “Birthright Citizenship Is Not Actually in the Constitution.”
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy agrees with Eastman and the president, but he told Ingraham he doesn’t want POTUS to issue an executive order.
“I think they should have congressional action, Laura, as a practical matter. Personally, I think this is a constitutional provision of the 14th Amendment where we’re not only just dealing with the constitutional provision — it’s also been codified by Congress,” McCarthy noted, adding that “there’s a very good argument that Trump shouldn’t do this by executive matter.”
“As a practical matter, I must tell you I think the way the Supreme Court lines up, the only way they have a chance of succeeding on what I and my friend John Eastman think is the correct policy is by getting it done by statute rather than executive order,” McCarthy insisted, according to Lifezette.
Though Congress has indeed passed a statute, Eastman says it uses “the exact language as the Constitution.”
“So we’ve got to figure out what the Constitution means. And, like I said, there are two requirements: born here and subject to the jurisdiction,” Eastman said. “And what the president is trying to do is just enforce that law as written.”
Never miss a story! Sign up for our daily email newsletter — Click here!