DESPERATE WORKAROUND

Stephen Miller Floats Wild Idea After Crushing SCOTUS Ruling

The immigration fanatic said the Trump administration will “take a hard look at” a new type of ban.

Stephen Miller has suggested an extreme workaround for the Supreme Court’s ruling that Donald Trump’s executive order overriding birthright citizenship is illegal.

The deputy White House chief of staff appeared yet again on Fox News, where on Monday he complained about the high court siding against the administration in a case involving mail-in ballots. This time, Miller was similarly disgusted by the court affirming that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to individuals born in the United States.

MELTDOWN INCOMING

Trump’s Own Justices Humiliate Him in Citizenship Ruling

Farrah Tomazin

With that avenue for overhauling over 150 years of precedent closed, Miller suggested the Trump administration may now try to ban pregnant foreigners from entering the country.

“You have to now think very carefully about who you let into your country even on a temporary basis because the possibility, as you said, for birth tourism,“ Miller, 40, told host Jesse Watters.

”People come here just to have babies on American soil and that baby gets to be a citizen for life,“ Miller, a key architect of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies, said.

“So, you have mothers that come in fully pregnant, have a baby, go home, and that baby gets Medicaid and that baby gets welfare and that baby gets cash assistance. [They will] leave the baby with a cousin, a relative, whatever, then send welfare checks back home. You can support a whole family in the third world,” Miller continued. “So yes, you can’t have the kinds of immigration programs other countries have when you can just have a baby here and now that child is an American citizen. So there’s a lot of things we will have to take a hard look at, Jesse.”

Yet the federal government already has rules and directives in place to try to counter “birth tourism.”

Under a State Department rule established in January 2020—during the first Trump administration—consular officers are instructed to deny “any B visa application from an applicant whom the consular officer has reason to believe is traveling for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child.”

The Justice Department on Tuesday also reiterated its April directive to prosecutors to target certain immigrant networks as part of its “Birth Tourism Initiative.” Lying on visa applications about one’s pregnancy or travel intentions still constitutes fraud.

Furthermore, only certain medical reasons permit pregnant immigrants to come to the U.S. to give birth, according to Immigration Advice Services.

MAGA DISSENTS!

MAGA Melts Down at ‘DEI’ Justice For Citizenship ‘Betrayal'

Farrah Tomazin

Still, Miller’s idea carried weight with some conservative commentators, as well as MAGA Rep. Andy Ogles, who introduced the Anchors Away Act, which he said “bans all pregnant aliens” from entering the U.S.

Whether that legislation gets any traction remains to be seen, but one certainty is that Miller’s dream of getting the Supreme Court to essentially overlook the text of the 14th Amendment is dead.

While Miller was on Fox grumbling about his loss, MS NOW anchor Chris Hayes explained “just how extreme, how unhinged, and how, frankly, racist” his argument was.

Play Video

The Supreme Court “repudiated” Miller’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment in 1898, Hayes said, when it ruled that a child born in the U.S. to Chinese citizens was an American.

“It looked at the plain text of the law, and they found that. And they handed down that decision—get this—two years after upholding racial segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson,“ Hayes noted, referring to that 7-1 ruling.

Five of the same justices were in the majority in each decision.

“Those justices, the ones who enshrined Jim Crow in the laws of the United States—they cemented ‘separate but equal,’ but even they upheld birthright citizenship in a 6 to 2 vote, because the language of the 14th was plain as day,“ Hayes said. ”That is how racist Stephen Miller and Donald Trump’s argument is. It is more racist than a racist, reactionary court. The infamous Plessy court was almost 130 years ago. Think about that."

See more of our coverage in your search results.

ADD THE DAILY BEAST ON GOOGLE

William VaillancourtReporter

Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast here.