330
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

Trump announced plans to end birthright citizenship via executive action, despite its constitutional basis in the 14th Amendment.

He also outlined a mass deportation policy, starting with undocumented immigrants who committed crimes and potentially expanding to mixed-status families, who could face deportation as a unit.

Trump said he wants to avoid family separations but left the decision to families.

While doubling down on immigration restrictions, Trump expressed willingness to work with Democrats to create protections for Dreamers under DACA, citing their long-standing integration into U.S. society.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Section 1

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[-] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it's there, but as we've clearly seen, if the law isn't enforced, or is selectively enforced, it might as well not exist.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Hell this exact amendment was openly ignored for nearly a century in that it is also meant to provide equality under the law for all citizens. But Women couldn't even vote for decades after this amendment was passed. Then there were a ton of laws on the books that were actively enforced that discriminated on race, sex, etc. Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement should not have been necessary after this amendment was passed. And yet....

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago

Start by getting rid of Ted Cruz, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Melania and all the Trump kids.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Isn't it crazy that only one person on that list is just a mere millionaire, the rest are billionaires?

Jr posted "Internet let's do your thing, let's find this guy" because he knew it was attack on his class.

If we want to Make America Great Again we needed to get rid of these parasites. They make us fight with each other, while they are the reason we get poorer and poorer.

[-] bitchkat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Ate you saying Malaria is a billionaire?

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's the same family.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago

Let's see how much the Constitution matters in a month and a half. Everyone who responds to the upcoming Trump madness with "it's unconstitutional" are in for a rude awakening.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 4 points 1 year ago

14A S3 wasn't enforced, why should 14A S1 be?

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Because it wasn't previously decided. However, in this case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is the Supreme Court ruling that determined the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States regardless of race or nationality.

In order to reverse, the court itself has to do it. Not that it wouldn't.

[-] excral@feddit.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

DoJ: "My lord, is that... constitutional?"

SCOTUS: "I will make it constitutional"

[-] dunidane@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

They are going to claim that if their patents are here illegally they aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. No matter how stupid that idea is their supreme court may let it go anyway. They already shit all over other parts of the 14th.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Birthright. If you are born here, you are a citizen. That's what they are talkin1g about.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

There's no confusion over the subject, just an expectation that the current SCOTUS could play the "Constitution doesn't apply if the mother had no legal standing to actually be in the US" argument. That technically that hasn't been established, and that there's an implicit expectation that people giving birth in the US are legally recognized to be in the US, and all bets are off if the mother isn't legally allowed in the US but gives birth in the US anyway. To the extent they seek being explicit about legal standing, they may point to the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" words as stating an illegal presence means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the state.

this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
330 points (98.0% liked)

News

35986 readers
813 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS