By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent interview, Donald Trump stated his intention to pardon January 6th rioters and end birthright citizenship on his first day back in office. He plans to pursue the latter through executive action, despite its unconstitutionality under the 14th Amendment. Legal experts predict immediate and significant litigation should he attempt either action. Trump falsely claimed that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship and that ending it is necessary.
Read the original article here
Trump’s stated plans for his first day back in office are ambitious, to say the least, focusing on two significant and potentially controversial actions: pardoning the January 6th rioters and attempting to end birthright citizenship. The sheer audacity of these proposals, coupled with their potential legal and political ramifications, makes them incredibly noteworthy.
Pardoning the January 6th rioters is a proposal fraught with legal and ethical complexities. Trump has indicated he would review individual cases, suggesting a potentially wide-ranging pardon, not necessarily encompassing all those involved. He’s described the conditions in which some are being held as “filthy, disgusting,” adding a layer of justification to his proposed act of clemency. This justification however, might fall flat given the severity of charges against many of the individuals involved and the potential for a mass pardon to be seen as a blatant disregard for the rule of law and a condonation of the attack on the Capitol. The scale of the pardons, and indeed, the selection criteria, will be key factors in determining the public and legal response. Some speculate he may focus on those with shorter sentences or who have already served time, avoiding the more high-profile and high-risk cases.
The attempt to end birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, represents an even more significant challenge. This amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born within US territory, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Overturning or altering such a fundamental aspect of the American legal system would require a substantial constitutional amendment, a process that is exceptionally arduous and time-consuming. It’s a highly unlikely scenario to achieve on a single day, suggesting either ignorance of the legal process or a willingness to bypass established protocols through potentially unconstitutional means. The political fallout of such an attempt would be immense, especially considering the diverse range of people affected, many of whom are American citizens. The implications extend beyond simple deportation; it raises questions of where these people would be sent and the logistics of implementing such a policy on a mass scale.
Some argue that the intent is to target specific groups, potentially impacting minority communities disproportionately. The logistical nightmares involved in such a large-scale deportation, even if legally achievable, are enormous, and the prospect of countries accepting deportees with no established citizenship in their own nation is highly dubious. This is further complicated by the existence of second-generation immigrants born in the US and thus holding citizenship. This has led to concerns about potential “final solutions,” implying a more drastic, even violent approach, to enforcing such a policy if it were attempted.
The comments surrounding this issue have been laced with irony, pointing out the potential hypocrisy of first-generation Latino immigrants voting for Trump despite his stance on birthright citizenship. There are many who see it as nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at targeting specific ethnic and religious minorities, especially focusing on more recent immigration waves. The potential for widespread civil unrest and international backlash should such attempts be made adds another layer of complexity to the whole proposal.
Finally, Trump’s habit of making grandiose pronouncements, frequently exaggerated or entirely untrue, should be factored into assessments of the validity of his day-one plans. His repeated use of media attention to generate buzz and headlines often results in a reality far different from the initially proclaimed ambition. While some believe he may genuinely attempt these controversial actions, others consider them empty threats or exaggerated statements aiming to energize his political base. The degree to which he can or will attempt to actually achieve them remains highly speculative. The focus remains, however, on the extreme nature of the proposals themselves, regardless of the actual likelihood of their success. The very mention of them underscores the significant shifts in policy and governing approaches if Trump were to return to office.