Readers React: Trump’s birthright citizenship stunt didn’t deserve any serious media coverage

A baby reaches for an American flag held by her mother during a naturalization ceremony in New York in 2011.
A baby reaches for an American flag held by her mother during a naturalization ceremony in New York in 2011.
(Justin Lane / EPA)

To the editor: If there is anything President Trump has been able to successfully do since the day he announced his candidacy, it is his ability to get the press to chase the next shiny thing.

That is exactly what he’s doing with his suggestion of overriding the 14th Amendment with an executive order, denying citizenship to those born in this country, including the children of people here without authorization.

He knows he can’t do it, but it’s red meat for his base and a distraction to the rest of us, especially the press. Yes, he’s the president, but the biggest favor the press can do for this country is to take away his oxygen.


In other words, don’t cover the stupid stuff.

Tim Sunderland, Rancho Cucamonga


To the editor: The part of the 14th Amendment in question reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”

Why do people always ignore “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, who served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the amendment, wrote at the time that: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors ... but will include every other class of persons.”

Simply because you oppose immigration scams does not mean you are anti-immigrant.

Nathan Post, Santa Barbara


To the editor: How clever of the Los Angeles Times to quote a 14th Amendment scholar saying that Trump could come up with at least three stooges to support his cockamamie idea, and then follow up with two such experts claiming that birthright citizenship was based on a “faulty premise.”

Perhaps we should have an honest discussion followed by a national referendum on the dubious premise of the 2nd Amendment.

Whoa, was that an earthquake? No, it was the tidal wave of the limitless-kind-and-quantity-of-guns crowd shaking in their boots.

Barbara Jackson, Cerritos


To the editor: What in the Constitution is next? Override the two-term limit on presidents by executive order? Oh yeah, there’s that pesky 22nd Amendment that would need to be overcome.

Would I be insulting fifth-graders if I stated the obvious about Trump’s knowledge of civics?

When it’s all over, I hope that asterisk that used to haunt former single-season home run king Roger Maris is still around somewhere.

Jeffrey S. Weiss, Encino

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook.