President Trump has given away the game last week. Faced with one of the biggest mass murder attacks in US history, Trump lamented the fact that he was turning away from politics at a time when Republicans were supposed to be on the rise.
And more precisely, he took the focus off his graduation campaign Message of Choice: Immigration and the "Invasion" of a Wandering Caravan to the US-Mexico Border
This and other context is important when considering Trump's claim to revoke citizenship through executive action. To be honest, there is very little reason to believe that this is a serious proposal – either legal or practical – and it should be considered and covered accordingly. There is ample reason to believe that this is primarily a trick to opening its base on the eve of an election.
The first important piece of context is the Constitution. The idea that someone who was born in the United States is entitled to citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment, and while arguing about whether a close setback could be allowed – for example, in the case of immigrants without Papers; there are precedents here. In U.S. Pat. v. Wong Kim Ark In 1898, the Supreme Court ruled that every person born in the United States was a citizen. The judges in this case found that the change did not include any information about the status or possible status of the parents. This became 1982 Plyler v. Doe affirmed that "no plausible distinction in relation to the Fourteenth Amendment" could be made between resident aliens whose entry into the United States is legal and resident, foreigners whose entry was unlawful.
Even those who advocate the revocation of citizenship generally agree that this would require a new constitutional amendment.
What really challenges the prospects of the alleged Gambit is the method: executive action It would be one thing for Congress to try to withdraw citizenship, and Trump, who is attempting to do so through executive measures, adds another major hurdle to the adoption of legislative proposals beyond [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy]
"There is an active academic debate about whether mere legislation could change it with respect to illegal immigrants and tourists," said Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute opposite Robert Barnes of the Post, "but it's nothing that is done solely by executive action can be. "
But perhaps the most important context here is the context of Trump." The president tends to float dubious and imaginative ideas – on the eve of a poll and otherwise – for political implications.
Prior to the 2016 election, Trump promised his sue sexual harassment and assault prosecutors – a purported sign of being serious about proving his innocence – and he has never done so, in recent weeks he has talked about how Congress could pass a new middle-class tax cut before the elections, although Congress was not even in session.
Trump has postponed the goal posts instead, promising a noncommittal decision to do so after the election – the idea that Republicans will take this idea with a budget deficit of up to a trillion dollars is hard to swallow, and most conspicuous is that almost no GOP members of the congr esses to reflect Trump's message.
Sometimes these performances appear outside of the election season. Earlier this year, Trump had taken up the idea of the Congress, which gave him a veto that Bill Clinton tried unsuccessfully and most likely would require a constitutional amendment. Finance Minister Steven Mnuchin suggested that the government have some sort of secret workaround to do so without a change. White House spokesman Raj Shah said, "There are certain things that are being discussed in relation to House and Senate rules." We're still waiting to find out what the magic solution is because Trump did not pursue it seven months later.
The point is that Trump tends to float ideas as if he is definitely following them, often simply because he wishes them to be true. He has done this repeatedly, regardless of the law and political constraints. And he has an even greater incentive to do so on the eve of the 2018 election because he feels that his message about immigration is dwarfed. That's why he calls the caravan an "invasion," and so he sends 5200 troops to the border just before the middle of the war, even though the asylum seekers of the last caravan simply surrendered at a port of entry.
A pretty good indicator of Trump's actual intentions here is the fact that he has not provided an actual timetable for trying to finish birth certificate. This means that it will not happen before the election next week, and if he has not done so after several months, the influence of the elections will have already registered and it will not matter. Trump has broken so many promises to his base, it's simply thrown on the scrap heap – an idea that should be "taken seriously, not literally".
These things must be covered somewhat believably because it is impossible to exclude what Trump might or may not do, and it is impossible to anticipate a possible Supreme Court ruling. But all of this points very clearly towards a cynical trick that will likely fail, even if it is attempted. And it will probably not even be tried.