On Wednesday, President Donald Trump announced his plan to remove the right of automatic citizenship for the children of illegal and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States. Sputnik sat down to discuss the possible consequence of the move with Michael Coudrey, Republican strategist and CEO YukoSocial.com

Sputnik: Do you think Trump's executive action will be enough to amend the US constitution? What exactly does this procedure entail? Could newly appointed judge Kavanaugh decide the fate of this initiative?

Michael Coudrey: Any executive order shifting the way federal agencies handle these cases will not be an amendment to the constitution. In fact, this specific case has never gone before the Supreme Court. Most notably there was a case many mention reinforcing this false notion under "United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

However from a legal standpoint, in Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. of legal aliens was entitled to "birthright citizenship" under the 14th Amendment. LEGAL aliens is the key word here. Not children of illegal foreign citizens.

Democrats have arbitrarily amended the constitution through executive action to fit their anti-American political agenda and the Trump administration will be challenging that.

READ MORE: Trump's Citizenship Attacks Seek to Generate Political Capital for Election

Sputnik: Has the migration issue become the most important talking point for the Republican Party during the midterm campaign? Can we expect similar news ahead of the election?

Michael Coudrey: It has indeed been a central perspective shared among Republicans and often times one of the most notable. Republicans want strong borders and they want the rule of law to be upheld on every level. Republicans are never against immigration so long as its done in a legal way in accordance with federal immigration law. We are not for illegal immigration, where foreign citizens illegally enter the United States and begin residence in an unlawful manner.

Sputnik: Could Democrats simply kill this measure similarly to sanctuary city laws by bringing this measure to state courts?

Michael Coudrey: They could attempt to sue the government and challenge this decision in court yes, and from this measure it would most likely eventually be challenged by the highest court in the land, who undoubtedly would uphold Trumps executive order.

READ MORE: Speaker Ryan: Trump Unable to End US Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

Sputnik: How does Trump's statement differ from the arguments across the aisle in favor of changing the current Constitution, for example, the second Amendment, Electoral College?

Michael Coudrey: This would not be an amendment to the constitution, therefore it would not be held within the same confines.

Sputnik: What other measures can the Trump administration implement to tighten current migration laws?

Michael Coudrey: To be fair the Trump administration is doing an incredible job at border security and has implemented many new protective measures. For insight perhaps he can take a look at how Israel maintains its borders and national security. A wall and a strong military presence on the border is preferred.

Sputnik: Which countries were the main benefactors from the birthright citizenship law?

Michael Coudrey: There are many, but predominantly Mexico. The problem is that it undermines the national security of the United States. Hostile foreign powers could absolutely abuse weak immigration laws as well as illegal foreign nationals.

The views and opinions expressed by the contributors do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.