Donald Trump, Birthright Citizenship, and the Art of Distraction

Donald Trump

Magicians know that the key to creating illusions is to distract the audience from what is really going on. If you’re palming a card in your left hand, get the audience to look at your right hand. If you want to hide a ball, get the audience to glance at your attractive assistant. Simple enough. Apparently, this technique also works in political speech.

The big news issues during the past week have dealt with hate crimes. A bigoted right-wing assassin murdered 11 people in a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh. Another right-winger sent letter bombs (fortunately, badly-made letter bombs) to various leading Democrats. In Kentucky, a white man shot two black men in the grocery store for no obvious reason. President Trump and the White House found it necessary to deny that President Trump’s sometimes-inflammatory speech contributed to these horrors. It was politically inopportune that the issue even came up. What president wants to be accused of such a thing to start with?

But maybe denial wasn’t enough? Maybe a good diversion was in order. And so the diversion came.

14th Amendment

In a brief statement to Axios on cable TV, President Donald Trump threatened to end birthright citizenship by executive order: “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't.” He then claimed that he could end birthright citizenship by executive order.

By way of context:

1. Many conservative politicians and media pundits have long claimed that the children of immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, should not be entitled to automatic US citizenship just because they are born in the United States. They often argue (falsely) that other nations do not generally offer birthright citizenship. This issue is very much a cause célèbre among hardline conservatives.

2. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which often makes many conservatives uncomfortable, says, among other things: “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.” I really do not see how that could be clearer.

3. Constitutional scholars are in almost universal agreement that to change birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment. For example, Trump supporter Alan Dershowitz explains this clearly.

The president cannot change the United States Constitution with an executive order. Mr. Trump claimed that “they” told him that he could. But that is ridiculous. If he had had an actual source he would not have said “they.” In any case, the 14th Amendment’s text is quite plain.

Right-wing media have been loudly digging around for some excuse to justify Mr. Trump’s outrageous statement. Predictably, radio host Rush Limbaugh commented, “If the case can be made — and people believe that it can be — that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants who are under the jurisdiction of another country, then Trump can do it.” Which “people” said this, and what their qualifications might be, is something that Limbaugh did not of course, say. He obviously could not, since no qualified person said any such thing.

So, what is going on here? It seems unlikely that Donald Trump’s sharp ability to grasp the moment has failed. Presumably, he noted that the hate crime issue was a no-win situation for him and his fellow Republicans. However, fear of immigration, steeped in reports of a migrant caravan coming up from Central America, is a major issue for Trump’s base voters.

Once we understand the audience-related issues, Mr. Trump’s diversion makes perfect sense. The hate crime issue dominated the news, to Mr. Trump’s detriment. He wasn’t going to win that one. The best he could hope for was to break even. Nor is it possible for Mr. Trump to change the Constitution by signing a piece of paper. He may think he can do it, but he can’t. No chance at all.

What he could do, however, was reset the national dialogue. For at least a couple of new cycles, he flipped the issue to something that his base cared about. He reestablished his credibility as anti-immigrant, which is what his base wants. Will he change the 14th Amendment? Of course not. He cannot do that any more than he can get Mexico to pay for the border wall. What he could do, however, was to reset the agenda. Social media is on fire with heated arguments pro and con the 14th Amendment issue. While we are talking about that, Mr. Trump and the Republicans in Congress are free to go about their true agenda, whatever that happens to be. Legally, Mr. Trump’s proposal was ludicrous. Rhetorically, it was a brilliant move. Distraction. Diversion. Works every time.

As I have said before, the side that sets the agenda wins the debate. And Mr. Trump is setting the agenda.

Image: Donald Trump, White House portrait

Image: Original copy of 14th Amendment, via Wikimedia Commons