Connect with us

The Dictatorship

There’s a simple reason Trump cannot simply erase birthright citizenship

Published

on

There’s a simple reason Trump cannot simply erase birthright citizenship

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that purportedly would end what is known as birthright citizenshipthe concept that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. That right is enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Just as a president does not have the authority to establish a national religion, or stay in office for a third term, the president does not have the authority to erase protections set forth in an amendment to the Constitution. To claim such authority is cynical at best, a sop to nativist elements on the right that should not survive legal challenge. But, in the meantime, millions of lives could be thrown into disarray with the president’s stroke of the pen, and perhaps that’s the point.

The notion of birthright citizenship was established as a principle of law in England in the 1600s and was enshrined in the U.S.’ “Second Founding,” the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution in the wake of the Civil War.

The president does not have the authority to erase protections set forth in an amendment to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment, which guarantees to anyone born within the United States the rights and protections of citizenship, was a direct response to the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. That decision became one of the many sparks that contributed to the Civil War. There, the court not only found unconstitutional any efforts by Congress to “compromise” around the spread of slavery to new U.S. territories and states; it also determined that enslaved persons, even ones who had resided in areas that prohibited slavery, did not enjoy the rights of citizens. The decision helped galvanize and harden public opinion around slavery, both among those who opposed it and those who supported it and wanted it to operate unfettered by federal law.

After the end of the war and during Reconstruction, Congress passed these amendments with the explicit purpose of ending slavery and involuntary servitude in all their forms. The 14th Amendment’s opening text provides that “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.” Because of that language, the president cannot, with the stroke of a pen, rewrite the Constitution.

Nor can Congress. Indeed, roughly 30 years after passage of the 14th Amendment, Congress attempted to exclude from its protections individuals born in the U.S. who were the children of Chinese parents. But the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Arkfound that any person born within the United States was entitled to benefit from the citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment. The plain language of the amendment made that clear and the court endorsed that obvious position.

So what would it really take to rewrite the 14th Amendment? Well, another amendment, which would require not just a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress in favor of repeal of the 14th Amendment, but also ratification by three quarters of the states. Such events are highly unlikely. The Constitution is hard to amend, as it should be. And the notion that the president can sidestep that process is simply preposterous.

Now, that likely will not stop the president and those who wish to see the end of birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Constitution from trying. Indeed, it was a pillar of the Project 2025 playbook. That does not change the fact that the Constitution protects this path to citizenship and only an amendment to the Constitution can change it.

But that does not mean that the president’s effort to try to rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen will not disrupt lives in the meantime. The cruelty of such a cynical move may be exactly what those who wish to end birthright citizenship wish to achieve.

The lives of real people will not be upended, and all for a cynical, cruel and unconstitutional joyride. But that may be the point.

Certainly, such a step would be met promptly by lawsuits challenging the action. In fact, a collection of 18 state attorneys general and some cities have already filed a suit against the order. Perhaps some judge, somewhere, will consider such an action permissible and refuse to prevent it from going into effect. Would it only prevent citizenship from being conferred on those born on U.S. soil in the future as the order purports to do? Could a judicial ruling approving the order invite the administration to seek to strip current citizens of their status?

But the Supreme Court — even this conservative court — will be hard-pressed to engage in down-is-up, up-is-down, Alice-in-Wonderland thinking: that the explicit words of the Constitution, as interpreted consistently for roughly a century-and-a-half, do not mean what they say.

Nevertheless, the president is seeking to end birthright citizenship; such action should be deemed contrary to the plain text of the Constitution. At the same time, lower court endorsement of the position might embolden even more aggressive steps by the administration, even if the Supreme Court should ultimately say the order is unconstitutional, which it should. That does not mean that, in the interim, the lives of real people will not be upended, and all for a cynical, cruel and unconstitutional joyride. But that may be the point.

Ray Brescia

Ray Brescia is a Professor of Law at Albany Law School and author of the forthcoming book, “The Private Is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism.”

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

The harsh realities of Arctic mining undercut Trump’s argument to take Greenland

Published

on

The harsh realities of Arctic mining undercut Trump’s argument to take Greenland

Greenland’s harsh environment, lack of key infrastructure and difficult geology have so far prevented anyone from building a mine to extract the sought-after rare earth elements that many high-tech products require. Even if President Donald Trump prevails in his effort to take control of the Arctic islandthose challenges won’t go away.

Trump has prioritized breaking China’s stranglehold on the global supply of rare earths ever since the world’s number two economy sharply restricted who could buy them after the United States imposed widespread tariffs last spring. The Trump administration has invested hundreds of millions of dollars and even taken stakes in several companies. Now the president is again pitching the idea that wresting control of Greenland away from Denmark could solve the problem.

“We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not,” Trump said Friday.

But Greenland may not be able to produce rare earths for years — if ever. Some companies are trying anyway, but their efforts to unearth some of the 1.5 million tons of rare earths encased in rock in Greenland generally haven’t advanced beyond the exploratory stage. Trump’s fascination with the island nation may be more about countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic than securing any of the hard-to-pronounce elements like neodymium and terbium that are used to produce the high-powered magnets needed in electric vehicles, wind turbines, robots and fighter jets among other products.

“The fixation on Greenland has always been more about geopolitical posturing — a military-strategic interest and stock-promotion narrative — than a realistic supply solution for the tech sector,” said Tracy Hughes, founder and executive director of the Critical Minerals Institute. “The hype far outstrips the hard science and economics behind these critical minerals.”

Stay up to date with the news and the best of AP by following our WhatsApp channel.

Follow on WhatsApp

Trump confirmed those geopolitical concerns at the White House Friday.

“We don’t want Russia or China going to Greenland, which if we don’t take Greenland, you can have Russia or China as your next door neighbor. That’s not going to happen,” Trump said

A difficult place to build a mine

The main challenge to mine in Greenland is, “of course, the remoteness. Even in the south where it’s populated, there are few roads and no railways, so any mining venture would have to create these accessibilities,” said Diogo Rosa, an economic geology researcher at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. Power would also have to be generated locally, and expert manpower would have to be brought in.

Another concern is the prospect of mining rare earths in the fragile Arctic environment just as Greenland tries to build a thriving tourism industry, said Patrick Schröder, a senior fellow in the Environment and Society program at the Chatham House think-tank in London.

“Toxic chemicals needed to separate the minerals out from the rock, so that can be highly polluting and further downstream as well, the processing,” Shröder said. Plus, rare earths are often found alongside radioactive uranium.

Besides the unforgiving climate that encases much of Greenland under layers of ice and freezes the northern fjords for much of the year, the rare earths found there tend to be encased in a complex type of rock called eudialyte, and no one has ever developed a profitable process to extract rare earths from that type of rock. Elsewhere, these elements are normally found in different rock formation called carbonatites, and there are proven methods to work with that.

“If we’re in a race for resources — for critical minerals — then we should be focusing on the resources that are most easily able to get to market,” said David Abraham, a rare earths expert who has followed the industry for decades and wrote the book “The Elements of Power.”

This week, Critical Metals’ stock price more than doubled after it said it plans to build a pilot plant in Greenland this year. But that company and more than a dozen others exploring deposits on the island remain far away from actually building a mine and would still need to raise at least hundreds of millions of dollars.

Producing rare earths is a tough business

Even the most promising projects can struggle to turn a profit, particularly when China resorts to dumping extra materials onto the market to depress prices and drive competitors out of business as it has done many times in the past. And currently most critical minerals have to be processed in China.

The U.S. is scrambling to expand the supply of rare earths outside of China during the one-year reprieve from even tougher restrictions that Trump said Xi Jinping agreed to in October. A number of companies around the world are already producing rare earths or magnets and can deliver more quickly than anything in Greenland, which Trump has threatened to seize with military power if Denmark doesn’t agree to sell it.

“Everybody’s just been running to get to this endpoint. And if you go to Greenland, it’s like you’re going back to the beginning,” said Ian Lange, an economics professor who focuses on rare earths at the Colorado School of Mines.

Focusing on more promising projects elsewhere

Many in the industry, too, think America should focus on helping proven companies instead of trying to build new rare earth mines in Greenland, Ukraine, Africa or elsewhere. A number of other mining projects in the U.S. and friendly nations like Australia are farther along and in much more accessible locations.

The U.S. government has invested directly in the company that runs the only rare earths mine in the U.S., MP Materialsand a lithium miner and a company that recycles batteries and other products with rare earths.

Scott Dunn, CEO of Noveon Magnetics, said those investments should do more to reduce China’s leverage, but it’s hard to change the math quickly when more than 90% of the world’s rare earths come from China.

“There are very few folks that can rely on a track record for delivering anything in each of these instances, and that obviously should be where we start, and especially in my view if you’re the U.S. government,” said Dunn, whose company is already producing more than 2,000 metric tons of magnets each year at a plant in Texas from elements it gets outside of China.

___

Funk reported from Omaha, Nebraska, and Naishadham reported from Madrid.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump administration to send ‘hundreds more’ federal agents to Minneapolis

Published

on

Trump administration to send ‘hundreds more’ federal agents to Minneapolis

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Sunday that “hundreds more” federal officers are being sent to Minneapolis following the killing of a 37-year-old Minnesota woman by an ICE agent last week.

Noem told Fox News that the surge of federal forces are being sent “in order to allow our ICE and Border Patrol individuals working in Minneapolis to do so safely.”

The additional officers are expected to arrive on Sunday and Monday, Noem said.

The surge was announced after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis on Wednesday in an incident that has drawn large protests against the Trump administration’s widespread deployment of federal agents and National Guard troops to major U.S. cities. The demonstrations continued through the weekend as thousands of people protested in Minneapolis and other cities across the country.

Local and state officials, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, D, and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob FreyD, were outraged by the killing and have doubled down on demands for immigration officials to leave the city, arguing they are making the area less safe.

At a news conference after Good’s killing, Frey told immigration officials to “Get the fuck out of Minneapolis” and vowed to get justice.

Frey told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday: “I don’t want our police officers spending time working with ICE on immigration enforcement… You know what I want our police officers doing? I want them stopping murders from happening. I want them preventing car-jackings.”

Cellphone video said to have been taken by Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer who fatally shot Good, was released Friday. The new video does not clearly demonstrate that Good was attempting to hit Ross with her car, as Trump officials have claimed.

Earlier bystander footage shows the wheels turned to the right as Good’s car pulls forward, away from Ross, who then shoots Good through the car’s windshield.

Noem and other Trump administration officials have called Good a “domestic terrorist,” and repeatedly claimed that she had tried to “run over” immigration officers.

Minnesota saw a massive 30-day surge of federal agents beginning earlier this month, with roughly 1,000 additional officers deployed to Minneapolis and St. Paul, including from ICE, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Minneapolis is one of many cities targeted by the administration in a nationwide crackdown on crime and immigration. Since President Donald Trump took office for a second term last year, immigration agencies and National Guard troops have been sent to cities including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Charlotte, N.C., and Memphis.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

National Portrait Gallery changes Trump portrait, removes text about Jan. 6

Published

on

National Portrait Gallery changes Trump portrait, removes text about Jan. 6

The National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., has swapped out a portrait of President Donald Trump and removed text about his two impeachments and the Jan.6 insurrection at the Capitol.

The White House announced the news on Saturday, sharing a photo of the black-and-white portrait of the president in the Oval Office with his fists on the desk taken by White House photographer Daniel Torok.

The previous phototaken by Washington Post photojournalist Matt McClain, showed Trump in a red tie with text on a nearby wall that read, in part: “Impeached twice, on charges of abuse of power and incitement of insurrection after supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, he was acquitted by the Senate in both trials.

A spokesperson for the Smithsonian told MS NOW that it is “beginning its planned update of the America’s Presidents gallery which will undergo a larger refresh this Spring” and that “the history of Presidential impeachments continues to be represented in our museums, including the National Museum of American History.”

A White House spokesperson said that “for the first time in history, the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery has hung up an iconic photo taken by the White House honoring President Trump. His unmatched aura will be seen and felt throughout the halls of the National Portrait Gallery.”

The Colorado legislature agreed last year to remove a portrait of Trump from the state Capitol after he called the painting “the worst.” He also said his photo on the cover of Time magazine in 2025 was taken from an unflattering angel, calling it the “Worst of All Time.”

Last week, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said that a federal law requiring Congress to hang a plaque in the Capitol honoring law enforcment officers who helped protect the Capitol on Jan. 6, was “not implementable.” But senators quickly passed a resolution to “prominently display” the plaque in the Senate wing of the building.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter and producer for MS NOW. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending