Donald Trump's Assault on Birthright Citizenship: Ignorance, Racism, and Constitutional Violations

 

Donald Trump's Assault on Birthright Citizenship: Ignorance, Racism, and Constitutional Violations

 By Germanico Vaca

Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated ignorance and, unfortunately, a willingness to showcase racist and foolish ideas. His proposal to revoke birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and should be grounds for removal from office if he goes through with a violation of the Constitution. This proposal also disregards the “principle of legality,” often summarized as "no punishment without law." This principle asserts that no one can be punished for an act that was not illegal when committed. Even more fundamentally, no one should be punished for merely being born and for rightfully enjoying the protections guaranteed under the Constitution.

 The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects anyone born on U.S. soil, making any executive order to revoke this protection grounds for impeachment. The president has no authority to issue decrees that contravene constitutional protections. Furthermore, even if such a decree were somehow issued, it would be unenforceable due to the universal principle that punishment requires a pre-existing law. No one can retroactively be punished for acts that were not crimes at the time. Trump’s statements reveal his ignorance and inability to reason, casting him in a shameful light globally. How shameful for the United States that the man who has been elected as president would display such ignorance and lack of common sense, decency, empathy, and respect for the constitution. 

 U.S. citizenship by birthright can be acquired in two ways: by being born within U.S. territory or by having at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen at the time of birth. Revoking birthright citizenship would not only violate the Constitution but could also spark mass protests and economic turmoil, affecting all citizens born to non-permanent residents. Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired through other means, such as naturalization, and is essential to U.S. legal and social frameworks.

 The right to citizenship by birth is guaranteed to most individuals born on U.S. soil by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified on July 9, 1868), which 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." This clause overturned the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, which denied U.S. citizenship to African Americans, and expanded this birthright to include territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Although this clause excluded Native Americans living under tribal sovereignty and children of foreign diplomats, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 later extended citizenship to Native Americans born in the U.S.

 A foundational legal principle here is the “principle of legality,” which states that no one can be punished without a law that clearly defines the act as a crime. It means that no government, including the president, can penalize anyone for actions that were not criminal at the time they occurred. Being born in the U.S. is not a crime, nor is being born under the protection of the Constitution. To penalize someone merely for existing would be not only unconstitutional but also a grave violation of human rights and legal norms. Any executive order attempting to revoke birthright citizenship would be rendered null and void by this fundamental principle. Surely even the puppet Supreme Court can not violate such a principle, because that will mean they will be in violation of the constitution.  

 This principle of legality has been part of English, American, and Universal law for centuries, encapsulated by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes in 1651: “No law, made after a fact done, can make it a crime.” This concept influenced both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, emphasizing the need for laws to be clear and specific. Without such clarity, laws cannot be effectively enforced or followed. Surely, the world must prepare for anarchy as we surely have elected the stupidest man to walk the Earth, making such a pronouncement is, in fact, a violation of Human Rights principles.

 Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reinforces this principle, particularly as laws change over time. A key exception to Article 7 allows prosecution for war crimes committed in the past, even if they were not considered crimes under national law at the time, as seen in the Nuremberg Trials following World War II. This ensures that dictators and perpetrators of crimes against humanity cannot evade justice by hiding behind national laws.