I think that’s too far. It’s such a good story, and it’s the way it’s always been in my lifetime before: you’re born in the USA, you get automatic US citizenship. No matter why your parents happen to be here. Maybe you have a layover in Miami on the way from Buenos Aires London, you go into labor and have the child at a hospital near the airport, that kid is a US citizen.

That makes sense to me (admittedly, probably because that’s the way it’s always been).

It’s like a nice little bonus for some people, and people can aim for it, and it’s a good story.

Okay, we don't need to go adding extra stupid stuff. At the base level you're doing their normalization for them. At the high level we need an accurate idea of what's coming so we can prepare.

Watching the actual interview it's clear he makes some assertions. They don't want to separate families so they will send the US citizens with the family if the family wants. What this generally means is when the parents are undocumented but a kid is a citizen. This interview does not support denaturalizing people, (but he did do that in his first term), or forcing American citizens in a mixed status family who are adults to leave.

On the 14th the interviewer wanted and got an answer from an 80 year old partially senile man. His first, natural answer to the 14th amendment question was he would go to the people. He only noncommittally said he would look at an EO when then interviewer kept asking him but what about an executive order. If he's mentioned doing that before the proper way is to bring up what he said before and see if he still holds that position. Not repeating, "but what about an EO" 5 times until you get the funny and the headline writers can celebrate.

The open question is how will this highly suggestable man fare around the likes of Stephen Miller.

I am not a lawyer, this is my interpretation of the situation.

So heres what I think will happen.

Birthright citizenship will not be completely gone.

To recap, 14th Amendment, Section1 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.

What will most likely happen is the DoJ under trump will take it to the supreme court, then the 6 conservatives will rule that unauthorized immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", so therefore their children do not get citizenship at birth. Maybe this is retroactive, maybe it applies from then on, I don't know.

But thats the most likely scenario.

Because we had a very conservative court back in the 1898 (remember, black people in this era couldn't even vote in southern states) that ruled that (United States v. Wong Kim Ark)

a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.

So I doubt this supreme court is more conservative than a 1898 supreme court so they most likely are not overturning that.

Basically, that court ruled that children of permanent residents have birthright citizenship, but never ruled on whether children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship. This 6-3 supreme court is gonna answer that. Which is gonna be a no, unfortunately.

Latino men who voted for Trump right now:

😬