Expert: Trump wants to abolish birth rights or to maintain white supremacy.

category:Hot click:356
 Expert: Trump wants to abolish birth rights or to maintain white supremacy.


In an interview with the media on October 30, U.S. President Trump once again made an astonishing remark: he will sign an executive order overturning the long-standing birthplace principle of the United States and abolishing landed nationality.

The remark was tantamount to dropping a blockbuster bomb on public opinion in the United States and around the world, prompting a controversial response.

And most puzzling of all, in the face of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly defined in the principle of birthplace, Trump did not know that his executive order will be the first time because of the so-called unconstitutional charges and difficult to do? What will Trump do when he knows the consequences?

Objectively speaking, although it sounds extreme, the abolition of landed citizenship has long been a buzz in the conservative camp in the United States, far from Trumps sudden fantasy.

In the interpretation of immigration policy in the State of the Union address in 2018, the Trump administration publicly opposed the so-called chain immigration, that is, a chain reaction based on kinship, and eventually an American citizen could explode into the United States as a family immigrant. This kind of practice completely violates the concept of relative immigration in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, but it can not curb the development trend of population diversification in the United States.

In other words, the prospect of white Americans losing their majority in the coming decades is almost certain in the face of high fertility among ethnic minorities such as Hispanics in legitimate or illegal provinces. The focus of all this turned to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which came into force in 1868, the rigid rule that American citizenship was born in the United States.

March 6, 2017, at the San Diego International Airport in California, people protest against immigration restrictions. Photo source: Xinhua News Agency

Abolishing this rule altogether would not only remove the so-called anchor babies that conservatives call chains of family immigrants, but also preserve, at least for as long as possible, the dominance of the white majority.

In this sense, Trumps strange talk is a big market among conservatives, but Republican politicians did not have to dare to shout publicly under the pressure of so-called political correctness and unconstitutional risk.

Now, Trump has broken the ice by saying what conservatives have long held in their hearts and dared not say, and this expression of truth will clearly consolidate Republican fundamentals in the mid-term elections. So there was an immediate, high-profile response from Senator Lindsay Graham, a South Carolina Republican congressman, to announce legislation on the same subject in the House.

But from the objective reality of the political process, Trump, if he does sign this administrative order, will immediately be subject to unconstitutional prosecution, and thus fully into the judicial process, and such a high controversial issue is very prone to the Federal Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court has fully ensured a conservative-dominated political direction since Kavano took office, it is not easy to get support for an executive order that overthrows the federal constitutional amendment.

And that may be what Trump wants to see: after losing the House of Representatives and entering a lame state, Trump can take the birthplace principle debate as a wedge issue to firmly control conservatives, especially white voters, and even initiate amendments to or even overthrow the 14th Federal Constitution. The national political movement of the United States adds weight to its own election agenda in 2020.

Or, this time, Trump said nothing: what he really wanted was to dominate the political agenda, and abolishing the birthplace principle was not the first goal. It is undeniable that even assuming these conservatives can eventually pull out the so-called anchored babies, the development of a legitimate U.S. population inevitably faces the prospect of a non-majority population structure. In this sense, what any politician, Democrat or Republican, should do now is to build a more pluralistic system of state and policy, rather than a meaningless countercurrent. Diao Daming (Research Fellow, Institute of National Development and Strategic Studies, Renmin University of China, Associate Professor, School of International Relations) Source: Responsible Editor, Beijing News: Gu Ying_NN6577

Or, this time, Trump said nothing: what he really wanted was to dominate the political agenda, and abolishing the birthplace principle was not the first goal.

It is undeniable that even assuming these conservatives can eventually pull out the so-called anchored babies, the development of a legitimate U.S. population inevitably faces the prospect of a non-majority population structure. In this sense, what any politician, Democrat or Republican, should do now is to build a more pluralistic system of state and policy, rather than a meaningless countercurrent.

Diao Daming (Research Fellow, Institute of National Development and Strategy, Renmin University of China, Associate Professor, School of International Relations)