Tuesday on his nationally syndicated radio, conservative talker Mark Levin criticized House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) for dismissing President Donald Trump’s claim in an interview with Axios that he could end the immigration policy of birthright citizenship through an executive order.

Ryan contended that a president could not end birthright citizenship “with an executive order” in an interview with Lexington, KY radio station WVLK.

Levin argued Ryan was incorrect and noted the history of the 14th Amendment, the constitutional amendment on which the policy is based, was being ignored by Ryan and others dismissing Trump’s claim.

“The ignorance on this subject, like so many others, is unbelievable,” Levin said. “This is the Speaker of the House, who cares not one whit about the history about the 14th Amendment — not one whit. The so-called experts, constitutional experts, professors, former trial judges in New Jersey who say the same exact thing — ignorant beyond belief. Illiterate when they come to the 14th Amendment.”

Levin also laid out his critique of Ryan’s remarks in a post on his website calling the House Speaker “utterly wrong” and noting the current basis of immigration policy comes out of a recent interpretation, not the intent or the original interpretation.

Post as follows:

Paul Ryan has no idea what he’s talking about. Today he said: “We, House Republicans and this President, are in total agreement on the need to stop illegal immigration. To secure our border and fix our laws,” Ryan said. “I think the smarter, faster solution here is to crack down on illegal immigration and we obviously support doing that. But, I’m a believer in the Constitution, I believe in interpreting the Constitution as it’s written, and that means you can’t do something like this via executive order.” Not until the 1960’s has the Constitution been interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy. So, to be clear, the president would not be altering the 14th amendment or the intent of the 14th amendment or the original interpretation of the 14th amendment. On the contrary, the president would be taking charge of the executive branch and upholding the 14th amendment. And I challenge Paul Ryan to demonstrate otherwise. That’s not to say that activist judges and courts might not embrace Ryan’s knee-jerk position, but the president is right.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor