The US mid-term elections in one week's time will help define the rest of Donald Trump's presidency.

Americans will vote for members of both chambers of Congress, as well as for governors in 36 out of 50 states.

Between now and then, we'll bring you updates and all the best analysis every weekday in this round-up.

Today's edition includes a musical dispute and a deeper look at an historic race.

One key issue

Curbing illegal immigration was one of the main campaign promises Mr Trump made when he ran for president.

The issue remains high on his agenda and, in an interview with Axios, Mr Trump made one of his most hard-line immigration pledges yet.

The president vowed to end the automatic right to citizenship for children born in the US to non-citizens.

Currently, all children born in the US get citizenship under the constitution.

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States," he said. "It's ridiculous. And it has to end."

In fact a number of countries, including Canada and Mexico, offer birthright citizenship.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption The missing - consequences of Trump's immigration crackdown

Mr Trump said that he could enact the change by signing an executive order but there are major doubts over whether this would be possible.

The legality of such a move, without explicit authorisation from Congress, is questionable, says the BBC's North America reporter, Anthony Zurcher.

Coming just days before the mid-term elections, this could be viewed as another attempt by the president to rally his base and change focus to the immigration issue, which he views as a political winner, he adds.

It follows yesterday's announcement that thousands of US troops would be sent to the southern border in response to the convoy of migrants that is inching northwards through Mexico.

But the group - known as the migrant caravan - isn't expected to arrive at the border for several weeks.

Mr Trump's critics said the move was a political statement ahead of the mid-terms.

Regardless, it is clear that immigration is an issue the president is keen to raise ahead of the crucial vote.

One irked musician

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Pharrell is not the first artist to warn Mr Trump against using their music

It's fair to say that Mr Trump has had some difficulty with finding the right walk-on music during his short political career.

The Rolling Stones hit You Can't Always Get What You Want was a particular favourite on the 2016 campaign trail but the band later asked him to stop playing it.

And earlier this month, Prince's estate warned the president about playing the star's hit Purple Rain at his rallies.

Now, Mr Trump has received a request to remove yet another track from his playlist. This time, it's Pharrell's hit Happy.

The artist has issued a cease-and-desist letter through his lawyer urging Mr Trump to stop playing his music.

But that doesn't mean he will be struggling for options.

The president could always choose a song from one of his musical supporters. Perhaps Kanye West or Kid Rock?

More on the mid-terms:

One historic race

Image copyright EPA Image caption Stacey Abrams is aiming to make history as the country's first black female governor

The pool of candidates running for office on November 6 is a diverse one. There are more women and LGBT people running than ever before, for example.

In Georgia, the race for the governor's mansion features a woman vying to become the first black American female to run a state.

Stacey Abrams, 44, has been considered a rising star among the Democratic Party's progressive wing but she faces a tough test in the deeply conservative state.

The BBC's Courtney Subramanian has travelled to Georgia to take a deeper look at the race, and what it says about the future of US politics.</s>The Latest: Ryan, Trump at odds on birthright citizenship

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship (all times local):

House Speaker Paul Ryan says President Donald Trump can't end birthright citizenship on his own.

The top Republican tells WVLK radio in Kentucky, "Well you obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order."

Ryan's comments Tuesday offered a rare challenge to the president — from his own party.

Trump tells "Axios on HBO" he wants to end birthright citizenship for babies born to non-citizens and immigrants not authorized to be in the United States.

Constitutional scholars are questioning whether changes could be made without Congress.

Ryan says Republicans didn't like when then-President Barack Obama "tried changing immigration laws via executive action. He says "obviously as conservatives we believe in the Constitution."

Ryan is retiring but the No. 3 House Republican, Louisiana's Rep. Steve Scalise, said on Fox that he's glad Trump is considering options.

Vice President Mike Pence says potentially changing birthright citizenship is part of the Trump administration's broad look at U.S. laws that draw people into the country illegally.

Pence said Tuesday the administration is looking at action that would revise birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. The amendment's Citizenship Clause says all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States.

Pence says the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether the language in the amendment applies specifically to people in the country illegally.

In a Politico interview, Pence denied that President Donald Trump's current talk about immigration is a scare tactic to rally Republican support in the midterms.

Trump tells "Axios on HBO" he wants to end birthright citizenship for babies born to non-citizens and immigrants not authorized to be in the U.S.

A person familiar with internal White House debate says the topic of birthright citizenship has come up various times over at least the last year.

President Donald Trump tells "Axios on HBO" he wants to end birthright citizenship for babies born to non-citizens and immigrants not authorized to be in the U.S.

White House lawyers expect to work with the Justice Department to develop a legal justification for the action. It's one of many immigration changes being discussed including asylum law changes and barring the migrant caravan from entering the U.S.

Administration officials say there likely would be no decisions until after the midterms.

Most scholars believe ending birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment.

The person familiar with internal White House debate wasn't authorized to speak publicly and spoke Tuesday to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity.

Constitutional experts are questioning President Donald Trump's legal ability to limit a constitutional amendment on birthright citizenship without Congress' consent.

Sarah Turberville directs The Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight and says Trump is "not a king" and "can't announce what the law is."

Other experts said Tuesday such an executive order might be possible if narrowly drawn but would violate the spirit of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Trump says in an interview with "Axios on HBO" he wants to end birthright citizenship for babies born to non-citizens and immigrants not authorized to be in the U.S. Most scholars believe ending birthright citizenship would require an amendment to the Constitution.

As early as 2015, Trump characterized birthright citizenship as a "magnet" for illegal immigration and the 14th Amendment as "questionable" in this context.

President Donald Trump says he wants to order the end of the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States.

The president's comments to "Axios on HBO" come amid a renewed push for hardline immigration policies before the midterm elections. Trump believes focusing on immigration will energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress.

Revoking birthright citizenship would spark a court fight over the president's unilateral ability to change an amendment to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment guarantees that right for children born in the U.S.

Asked about the legality of such an executive order, Trump said, "they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

Trump says White House lawyers are reviewing his proposal. It is unclear how quickly he'd act on an executive order.</s>WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is making another hardline immigration play in the final days before the midterm elections, declaring that he wants to order an end to the constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States to non-citizens. Most scholars think he can’t implement such a change unilaterally.

With seven days to go before high-stakes elections that he has sought to focus on fearmongering over immigration, Trump made the comments to "Axios on HBO." Trump, seeking to energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress, has stoked anxiety about a caravan of Central American migrants making its way to the U.S.-Mexico border.

His administration announced Monday it was dispatching thousands of active-duty troops to the border, and Trump said he'd set up tent cities to house asylum seekers.

Trump has long called for an end to birthright citizenship, as have many conservatives. An executive order would spark an uphill legal battle for Trump about whether the president has the unilateral ability to declare that children born in the U.S. to those living here illegally aren't citizens. Most scholars think he can't.

Asked about the legality of such an executive order, Trump said, "they're saying I can do it just with an executive order." He added that "we're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States." A 2010 study from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports immigration restrictions, showed that 30 countries offered birthright citizenship.

The Pew Research Center found in a survey published two years ago that births to "unauthorized immigrants" were declining and accounted for about 1 in 3 births to foreign-born mothers in the U.S. in 2014. About 275,000 babies were born to such parents in 2014, or about 7 percent of the 4 million births in the U.S. that year, according to Pew estimates based on government data. That represented a decline from 330,000 in 2009, at the end of the recession.

An excerpt of Trump's interview was posted on Axios' website on Tuesday.

The president said White House lawyers are reviewing his proposal. It's unclear how quickly he would act and the White House did not provide further details.

A person familiar with the internal White House debate said the topic of birthright citizenship had come up inside the West Wing at various times over at least the last year, but has some internal detractors. White House lawyers have debated the topic, and expect to work with the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to develop a legal justification for the action. It is one of many immigration changes being discussed including asylum law changes, and barring the migrant caravan from entering the country.

But administration officials said there would likely be no decisions until after the midterms, due in part to the president's trip to Pittsburgh Tuesday to meet with victims of the deadly synagogue shooting.

Legal experts questioned whether Trump has the authority to do this by executive order.

Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants' Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, said Tuesday that the Constitution is very clear.

"If you are born in the United States, you're a citizen," he said, adding that it was "outrageous that the president can think he can override constitutional guarantees by issuing an executive order,

Jadwat said the president has an obligation to uphold the Constitution. Trump can try to get Congress to pass a constitutional amendment, "but I don't think they are anywhere close to getting that."

"Obviously, even if he did, it would be subject to court challenge," he added.

Suzanna Sherry, a professor of law at Vanderbilt Law School specializing in constitutional questions, said those advising Trump that he can change the Constitution via executive order are simply mistaken. "He can't do it by himself and, in fact, he can't do it even if Congress passed a statue."

"I think it would take a Constitutional amendment," she said. "I don't see it as having any plausible legal basis," she said.

But others suggest the president may have an opening.

Jon Feere, a senior adviser at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is among those who has long argued that that the president could limit the citizenship clause through executive action.

"A president could direct his agencies to fall in line with his interpretation of the Supreme Court's rulings, which are arguably limited to children of permanently domiciled immigrants (the court has never squarely ruled on children born to tourists or illegal aliens). He could direct his agencies to issue Social Security numbers and passports only to newborns who have at least one parent who is a citizen or permanently domiciled immigrant," he wrote in 2015 in an op-ed in the Hill.

In the final days before the Nov. 6 midterms, Trump has emphasized immigration, as he seeks to counter Democratic enthusiasm. Trump believes that his campaign pledges, including his much-vaunted and still-unfulfilled promise to quickly build a U.S.-Mexico border wall, are still rallying cries for his base and that this latest focus will further erode the enthusiasm gap.

Trump voiced his theory that birthright citizenship could be stripped during his campaign, when he described it as a "magnet for illegal immigration." During a 2015 campaign stop in Florida, he said: "The birthright citizenship - the anchor baby - birthright citizenship, it's over, not going to happen."

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: "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."

The amendment was passed by Congress in 1866 during the period of Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was ratified in 1868 by three-fourths of the states. By extending citizenship to those born in the U.S., the amendment nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision (Dred Scott v. Sandford), which ruled that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.

In addition to the debate over Trump's authority to declare that children born in the U.S. aren't citizens, a separate question is whether Congress could pass a law to that effect, or whether only a constitutional amendment could accomplish Trump's apparent aim of denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of those here illegally.

Republicans in Congress continue introducing bills to end birthright citizenship, including legislation this session from conservative GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa who has aligned himself with some nationalist political leaders abroad. King's bill has almost 50 co-sponsors in the House. King's legislation though would likely face a cool reception in the Senate where there is no companion bill pending, and a handful of senators supported past efforts.

King said he had not discussed the issue with the president at any length in recent months, but that it had come up "in passing" several times in group discussions. He said he hadn't personally considered birthright citizenship to be part of the caravan issue and applauded the president for connecting the issues.

"Sending this message out, it's another component of saying to the caravan: Don't come in here. Some are pregnant, no doubt," he said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, now a close ally of the president, also tweeted his support for the change.

“This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end,” he said.</s>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With congressional elections a week away, President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he will seek to scrap the right of citizenship for U.S.-born children of non-citizens and illegal immigrants as he tries again to dramatically reshape immigration policies.

Reviving his support for a legally questionable theory, Trump told the Axios news website he would issue an executive order on so-called birthright citizenship, an issue that has long rankled some conservative Republicans.

Trump’s previous calls to end the practice have resonated with his political base, but moderate Republicans and some legal experts say Trump is running afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

Under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War to ensure that black Americans previously subject to slavery had full citizenship rights, citizenship is granted to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

It has been routinely interpreted over the years to confer citizenship to people born in the United States whose parents are illegal immigrants.

Trump, who has made rhetoric against illegal immigrants a central plank of his presidency, originally spoke out against birthright citizenship when he first started running for president in 2015.

One Republican member of Congress, frequent Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham, said he would move to introduce legislation “along the same lines” as Trump’s order.

Neither Graham nor Trump gave any details about the latest plan. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Other Republicans were critical. U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump could not scrap the right with the stroke of a pen.

“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” Ryan, the top Republican in Congress, said in an interview with radio station WVLK, the Washington Post reported.

In the run-up to the Nov. 6 congressional elections, Trump has seized on a caravan of migrants from Central America who are trekking through Mexico toward the United States, calling the migrants a threat. On Monday, the United States said it would send over 5,200 troops to help secure the border with Mexico.

Bill Kristol, editor at large of the conservative Weekly Standard and a Trump critic, said in a Twitter post:

“The shrinking caravan of refugees isn’t a threat to the country or the constitutional order. A president who tries to end birthright citizenship by executive order is.”

Trump, whose hard-line stance against illegal immigration helped him win the White House, is emphasizing his policy to drum up support for fellow Republicans in the elections as Americans are sharply divided and grappling with race and national identity.

Opinion polls show Democrats have a chance at achieving the net gain of 23 seats they need to win a majority in the House but they have a longer shot at the Senate, where they need a gain of two seats.

Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi accused Trump of trying to distract attention from healthcare policy, which Democrats have identified as a top election issue.

“President Trump’s new claim he can unilaterally end the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship shows Republicans’ spiraling desperation to distract from their assault on Medicare, Medicaid and people with pre-existing conditions,” Pelosi said in a statement.

The legal argument espoused by conservative activists for excluding children of illegal immigrants would likely be based around the language in the 14th Amendment that says people born in the United States are citizens if they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Activists seeking to limit immigration, including Michael Anton, who wrote an article on the subject for the Washington Post in July, argue that illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore their children born on U.S. soil should not be U.S. citizens.

Most legal scholars say the jurisdiction language denies citizenship only to those who are not bound by U.S. law, such as the children of foreign diplomats.

Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute, said that although there is a debate in academic circles among conservatives on whether Congress could legislate on the issue without running afoul of the 14th Amendment, “it’s not something that can be done by executive action alone.”

At least since 2005, Republicans in the U.S. Congress have regularly offered legislation ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States if their parents were in the United States illegally. But the legislation has never advanced, even when the House of Representatives or Senate was under Republican control.

Vice President Mike Pence said the plan may not be unconstitutional, telling Politico in an interview that while “we all cherish” the 14th amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on the issue entirely.

“But the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th amendment, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally,” Pence said.

The Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on the issue of whether illegal immigrants can be denied birthright citizenship.

In 1898, however, in the case of a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants who lived permanently in the United States, the court ruled that the government could not deny him citizenship.

Saikrishna Prakash, a conservative legal scholar at the University of Virginia, said Trump faces long legal odds to ending citizenship as a birthright.

“We’re a nation of immigrants so if I were to bet I would think the president is going to lose,” he said.</s>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump on Tuesday revived his support for the legally questionable theory that citizenship is not automatically conferred on children born in the United States of illegal immigrants, in a bid to reshape immigration policies with crucial congressional elections a week away.

Seeking to shore up support for fellow Republicans, Trump told the Axios news website he would issue an executive order on the subject, a unilateral move without congressional approval that would require a radical new interpretation of existing law and almost certainly be challenged in the courts.

Under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, enacted in the wake of the U.S. Civil War to ensure that blacks previously subject to slavery had full citizenship rights, citizenship is granted to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

It has been routinely interpreted over the years to confer citizenship to people born in the United States whose parents are illegal immigrants.

Trump, who has made rhetoric against illegal immigrants a central plank of his presidency, originally spoke out against birthright citizenship when he first started running for president in 2015.

The legal argument espoused by conservative activists for excluding children of illegal immigrants would likely be based around the language in the 14th Amendment that says people born in the United States are citizens if they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Activists seeking to limit immigration, including Michael Anton, who wrote an article on the subject for the Washington Post in July, argue that illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore their children born on U.S. soil should not be U.S. citizens.

Most legal scholars say the jurisdiction language denies citizenship only to those who are not bound by U.S. law, such as the children of foreign diplomats.

Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute, said that although there is a debate in academic circles among conservatives on whether Congress could legislate on the issue without running afoul of the 14th Amendment, “it’s not something that can be done by executive action alone.”

One Republican member of Congress, frequent Trump ally Senator Lindsey Graham said he would move forward to introduce legislation “along the same lines” as Trump’s order.

At least since 2005, Republicans in the U.S. Congress have regularly offered legislation ending birthright citizenship for children born in the United States if their parents were in the United States illegally. But the legislation has never advanced, even when the House of Representatives or Senate was under Republican control.

Neither Graham nor Trump gave any details about the latest plan. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Vice President Mike Pence said the plan may not be unconstitutional, telling Politico in an interview that while “we all cherish” the 14th amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in on the issue entirely.

“But the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th amendment, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally,” Pence said.

The Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on the issue of whether illegal immigrants can be denied birthright citizenship.

In 1898, however, in the case of a man born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants who lived permanently in the United States, the court ruled that the government could not deny him citizenship.

Saikrishna Prakash, a conservative legal scholar at the University of Virginia, said Trump faces long legal odds to ending citizenship as a birthright.

“We’re a nation of immigrants so if I were to bet I would think the president is going to lose,” he said.</s>President Donald Trump says he wants to sign an executive order ending "birthright citizenship" for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil.

Most citizens are taught early in their education that birthright citizenship is an immutable, undisputed right, explicitly granted by the Constitution. But, it turns out, birthright citizenship may not be a constitutional right.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment — enacted in 1868 — reads "(a)ll 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."

If the clause simply omitted "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then there would likely be no debate, and birthright citizenship would be unassailable absent a constitutional amendment. But the "subject to the jurisdiction" language has created a lot of debate over the years.

To some scholars, birthright citizenship has been the result of an accidental interpretation of the Constitution, federal law and Supreme Court precedent — an error that they believe can be corrected without Constitutional amendment.

Shortly after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court in 1872 had an opportunity to interpret it in the "Slaughterhouse Cases," observing that the amendment's "main purpose was to establish the citizenship of" African-Americans. It also concluded that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to exclude the children of "ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States."

The argument goes: If these categories of people were not "subject to the jurisdiction" then it follows that babies born of illegal immigrants have even less claim to citizenship.

But then, in 1898, the Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, holding that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States" was entitled to citizenship based on his birth on American soil.

This case, together with the clear meaning of every other part of the Citizenship Clause — except for that tricky "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part — form the bulk of the strongest arguments for birthright citizenship: To supporters, it's in the 14th Amendment, and the Supreme Court appears to have squarely decided the issue.

But maybe it didn't. The Wong Kim Ark case did not actually decide whether children of illegal immigrants are entitled to birthright citizenship — only children of immigrant parents with "permanent domicile" in the United States.

Some scholars go further and argue that the Wong Kim Ark decision is completely erroneous, and based on a mistaken interpretation of the 14th Amendment — a mistake that has caused a major constitutional misunderstanding that persists to this day.

Those against birthright citizenship ultimately conclude that while the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause has been misapplied, it was always intended to grant citizenship only to people who are born here and whose parents are not foreign subjects.

To them, "subject to the jurisdiction" clause is not just some meaningless phrase, because there is a presumption that laws and the Constitution do not contain surplus or meaningless words. For the same reason that children of diplomats and invading armies would not be citizens, children of illegal immigrants should not be either. All of these children are — by this interpretation — not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Those who support birthright citizenship have a more straightforward argument. Whatever "subject to the jurisdiction" ultimately means, it doesn't change the rest of the language of the Citizenship Clause. If that vexing phrase has any limiting meaning, it just refers to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States —just as someone who commits crimes in interstate commerce is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government.

Whichever side is right, there's a compelling historical — if not legal — argument for not amending the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship. The Constitution has been amended to expand rights and increase protections. It is rarely amended to remove existing rights.

Arguably, the one time that has occurred in our history was the 18th Amendment, which imposed a federal criminal prohibition on alcohol. By any measure, that was ultimately a spectacularly unsuccessful amendment.

Danny Cevallos is an MSNBC legal analyst. Follow @CevallosLaw on Twitter.</s>President Donald Trump has declared he wants to use an executive order to end the constitutional right to American citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.

Trump made the comments Monday night to "Axios on HBO" and claimed America is the only country in the world that even allows birthright citizenship.

This isn't the first time the president has brought this proposal up. Ending birthright citizenship was part of the immigration plan Trump released back during his presidential campaign.

Is the U.S. the only country that has this process in place? Can President Trump change this part of the constitution himself?

Marilyn Mayer asked if Trump's claim that the U.S. is the only country that has birthright citizenship was true.

Trump's claim that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship is false. Trump can't change the constitution by himself and an executive order to stop birthright citizenship would surely set off an intense legal battle.

A 2010 study by the Center for Immigration Studies clearly shows that 30 countries around the world grant automatic citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants - including Canada, Brazil and Mexico.

We also double-checked Canada's Citizenship Act which clearly states that a person is a citizen if "the person was born in Canada after Feb. 14, 1977." Canada's law makes no exceptions for immigrants.

So we can verify Trump's claim that the U.S. is the only country with birthright citizenship is false.

President Trump claims he'll sign an executive order to stop birthright citizenship. To do so would require a change to the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment was ratified 150 years ago and reads in part: "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."

That means any child born in the United States is considered a citizen.

A change to the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate or two-thirds of state legislatures can call for a constitutional convention.

So we can verify the president cannot change the Constitution with an executive order.

If the president does sign an executive order to try and stop birthright citizenship, it would set up a significant legal battle that likely would go to the Supreme Court.

Conservative critics argue the 14th Amendment should only apply to citizens and legal permanent residents - not undocumented immigrants.</s>President Donald Trump said in an interview that he plans to sign an executive order ending "birthright citizenship" for the children of non-American citizens who are born on U.S. soil, a move that would likely be challenged immediately in the courts over its constitutionality.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump told "Axios on HBO" in an interview set to air Sunday, just two days before the midterm election. "You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States, with all of those benefits," Trump said.

The president said, "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." He said the move was "in the process" and that it "will happen, with an executive order."

Such an executive order would likely face legal challenges immediately. According to the 14th Amendment, "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."

The amendment was adopted in 1868, after the Civil War, and the above language was meant to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves, according to FactCheck.org.

The concept of birthright citizenship was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark when the court affirmed the citizenship of a man born on U.S. soil to parents who were Chinese nationals.

But Jon Feere, a legal policy analyst for the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies, says some legal scholars argue that the wording "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has "no plain meaning" and the "current, broad application of the Citizenship Clause may not be warranted."</s>MADISON — Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said Tuesday that “obviously” President Donald Trump couldn’t end the constitutional right of birthright citizenship with an executive order, while saying he agrees with the president that “unchecked illegal immigration” needs to be addressed.

Many conservatives have long called for an end to the constitutional right to citizenship for babies born in the United States. Most constitutional scholars agree with Ryan that the president cannot implement such a change unilaterally.

“Well you obviously cannot do that,” Ryan told Lexington, Kentucky, radio station WVLK-AM. “You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.”

Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who once appeared open to ending birthright citizenship, did not have an immediate comment Tuesday. Another Republican, U.S. Senate candidate Leah Vukmir, issued a statement praising President Trump’s attempts to tackle illegal immigration without clearly stating her position on ending birthright citizenship.

Ryan said that “as a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process. Where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting at the root issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration.”

President Trump’s comments regarding the 14th Amendment came in an interview with “Axios on HBO” The amendment’s citizenship clause guarantees the right of citizenship for all children born in the U.S. The amendment, ratified in 1868, nullified the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that had held that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.

Walker, who is locked in a tight re-election battle with Tony Evers, appeared open to the idea of ending birthright citizenship when asked about it during his presidential run in 2015. Walker told a reporter then that he would not want to deport children born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens, but when asked if birthright citizenship should end Walker said, “Yeah.” Days later, Walker said he had no position on birthright citizenship “one way or the other.”

Walker’s campaign spokesmen did not immediately return an email seeking comment Tuesday.

Evers, the state superintendent, opposes the idea, his campaign said.

Vukmir, the Republican Senate candidate, noted in her statement that she is the daughter of Greek immigrants.

“I support birthright citizenship for individuals that are legally in our country, but illegal immigrants are taking advantage of America’s generosity,” Vukmir said. “I applaud President Trump’s courageous leadership to fix our immigration crisis, which Senator Baldwin has failed to fix and has resulted in free education and healthcare benefits for illegal immigrants.”

“What we really need to do is fix our broken immigration system and strengthen our border through comprehensive immigration reform,” she said.

Baldwin’s colleague in the Senate from Wisconsin, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.</s>WASHINGTON (AP) - President Donald Trump has astonished legal scholars with his claim that he can end birthright citizenship with a swipe of his pen. No, they say, he can't.

Trump also went far off track in asserting that the U.S. is the only country that automatically grants citizenship to anyone born in the country. Many do.

His comments in an interview with "Axios on HBO":

TRUMP: "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't. ... Well, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

THE FACTS: Scholars widely pan the idea that Trump could unilaterally change the rules on who is a citizen. It's highly questionable whether an act of Congress could do it, either, though it is conceivable that legislators could change the rules regarding children born in the U.S. of parents who are in the country illegally.

Peter Schuck is perhaps the most prominent advocate of the idea that birthright citizenship is not conveyed by the Constitution to children of parents who are living illegally in the U.S. Even he says "Trump clearly cannot act by" executive order.

"I feel confident that no competent lawyer would advise him otherwise," he said by email Tuesday. "This is just pre-election politics and misrepresentation and should be sharply criticized as such."

Schuck, of Yale, and colleague Rogers Smith of the University of Pennsylvania have argued since the mid-1980s that Congress can set the rules for providing citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who came illegally.

But most scholars on the left and right share the view that it would take a constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are in the country illegally.

James Ho, a conservative Trump-appointed federal appeals court judge, wrote in the Green Bag legal journal in 2006 that birthright citizenship "is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers."

Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell university immigration expert, said the case against Trump's authority is "not open and shut, but the better view is it would require a constitutional amendment."

The Constitution's citizenship clause was part of the post-Civil War amendments that enshrined the rights of African-Americans. The citizenship clause, in particular, was intended to overturn the Supreme Court's notorious Dred Scott decision of 1857 that held African-Americans were not citizens.

The Supreme Court has never ruled squarely about the clause's application to children of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Trump did not make a distinction between legal and illegal status in his remarks. An 1898 Supreme Court decision held that the U.S.-born son of legal Chinese immigrants was a citizen under the 14th Amendment; a footnote in a 1982 decision suggests there should be no difference for children of foreign-born parents whether they are in the U.S. legally or illegally.

TRUMP: "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship - the principle of jus soli or "right of the soil" - is applied, according to the World Atlas and other sources. Most are in the Americas. Canada and Mexico are among them. Most other countries confer citizenship based on that of at least one parent - jus sanguinis, or "right of blood" - or have a modified form of birthright citizenship that may restrict automatic citizenship to children of parents who are on their territory legally.

More broadly, Trump's view that U.S.-born children of foreigners live a lifetime of taking "all those benefits" ignores the taxes they pay, the work they do and their other contributions to society.
U.S. President Donald Trump vows to revoke the right to automatic citizenship given to children born on United States land to illegal immigrants. According to most authorities, birthright citizenship in the United States is protected in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.