[Scroll down for update]
The United States Holocaust Museum displays a version of a poem written by German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller. “It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis’ rise to power and subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group…It deals with themes of persecution, guilt and responsibility.”
The version reads:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
On the heels of the trauma our nation is experiencing after the mailing of 13 explosive devices to “enemies” of Trump and the killing of 11 persons at a Pittsburgh Synagogue by a man who echoed Trump’s “invaders” tirades, Trump this morning announced another “first.”
He announced that he plans to sign an executive order “ending birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil.”
While the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly spells out that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” in his never-ending prejudice, ignorance of the Constitution and impulse to abuse power, Trump explains, “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t…”
Yes, “First they came…”
As an immigrant and a naturalized citizen, I must wonder if “Then they came for naturalized citizens…” might be the next stance.
“Ridiculous,” you say.
Let us hope so.
But just to be sure, do speak out.
Speak out even though you may not be a “birthright citizen,” even though you may not be a “green card holder,” even though you may not be a naturalized American, even though you may not be a recent immigrant, a recent refugee.
Do speak out on November 6.
UPDATE:
As a lawyer and as a Judge Advocate in the U.S. Air Force, Senator Lindsey Graham should have some more thoughtfulness for the Constitution.
However, out of political expedience and probably in return for a promise by the president, Graham has decided to play along with Trump in another ploy to fire up the base by fomenting more division, fear and anger to get a few more extreme-right votes on November 6 — this time by questioning and attacking the 14th Amendment, “birthright citizenship.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has called such contemplated action “a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee is clear. You can’t erase the Constitution with an executive order.”
In announcing that he is planning to introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship, Graham, the politician, says, “Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship. I’ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform — and at the same time — the elimination of birthright citizenship.”
While this may “technically” be the Constitutional way to amend the 14th Amendment, it will surely be a long, uphill battle, certainly extending beyond November 6.
More glaringly, why hasn’t the lawyer, Graham, corrected his mentor and golf partner who has ignorantly said that he will simply end birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil through executive order.
Why hasn’t Senator Graham called Trump out on his 5000th-and-something lie that “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States … with all of those benefits.”
While many Constitutional and legal experts are weighing in, one of the more interesting insights has come from George T. Conway III, spouse of Trump’s counselor, Kellyanne Conway, who, along with Neal Katyal point out in a Washington Post column:
Sometimes the Constitution’s text is plain as day and bars what politicians seek to do. That’s the case with President Trump’s proposal to end “birthright citizenship” through an executive order. Such a move would be unconstitutional and would certainly be challenged. And the challengers would undoubtedly win.
They continue, “Birthright citizenship sprang from the ashes of the worst Supreme Court decision in U.S. history, Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that said that slaves, and the children of slaves, could not be citizens of the United States. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans was shed to repudiate that idea.”
After much more historical and Constitutional background and plenty of criticism, the authors state the obvious, “…the president’s proposal suffers from another infirmity — it exceeds the scope of his authority.”
They conclude,
The fact that the two of us, one a conservative and the other a liberal, agree on this much despite our sharp policy differences underscores something it is critically important to remember during a time marked by so much rancor and uncivil discourse: Our Constitution is a bipartisan document, designed to endure for ages. Its words have meaning that cannot be wished away.
Talking about “the two of us” and “sharp policy differences,” Conway is part of another “two of us,” i.e. George and Kellyanne (Conway).
The latter has defended Trump’s proposed executive action claiming that children of immigrants in the country illegally should not be protected by the 14th Amendment and maintaining that such practice is uncommon in the developed world.
Read more of the Conway-Katyal piece here.
The Washington Post: George T. Conway III is of counsel at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Neal Katyal is a partner at Hogan Lovells and former acting U.S. solicitor general in the Obama administration.
