It would likely not matter. Liberals were going to vote the way they did, regardless.
Although it seems "plain as day" what the original intent was, the issue was open to interpretation (and, IMHO, abused by the judiciary and many others) for decades.
As such, while PDJT's EO rightly sought to clarify the matter and stop the abuse, an EO that can be undone by FUTURE presidents wasn't the best way to handle the matter.
It will be a harder row to hoe, but, as alluded to in (Kavanaugh's?) dissent, a (tightly-worded) constitutional amendment would be the best way to ensure this birthright citizenship travesty - and the possibility of flip-flopping on the issue - is ended and settled once and for all.
It would likely not matter. Liberals were going to vote the way they did, regardless.
Although it seems "plain as day" what the original intent was, the issue was open to interpretation (and, IMHO, abused by the judiciary and many others) for decades.
As such, while PDJT's EO rightly sought to clarify the matter and stop the abuse, an EO that can be undone by FUTURE presidents wasn't the best way to handle the matter.
It will be a harder row to hoe, but, as alluded to in (Kavanaugh's?) dissent, a (tightly-worded) constitutional amendment would be the best way to ensure this birthright citizenship travesty - and the possibility of flip-flopping on the issue - is ended and settled once and for all.