674
Donald Trump tries to kill birthright citizenship with executive order
(www.huffpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
674 points (99.3% liked)
News
35849 readers
669 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
The heritage foundation has an argument prepared for the inevitable supreme court case. I think it's shit, even for them, but SCOTUS seems like they'll go along with anything.
Their argument hinges on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" claiming that this somehow excludes non-citizens. Accepting this argument would have the weird implication of saying that non-citizens in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So... how do other laws apply to them? How could they be charged with working or entering the US illegally?
That clause was targeted at, and is still targeted at, foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity. If you can't be compelled to to pay your parking tickets because you put the little flag on your car, then your babies also don't get to be Americans. Easy.
If your typical non-little-flag-on-car undocumented immigrants are really "not subject to the jurisdiction," then how can you arrest them for all of the horrible crimes they are allegedly committing?
The answer there is easy and horrifying. Since they're "not subject to" the law of the US, you can basically declare them outlaws. The od-school use of the term, basically meaning "this person exists outside of legal sight, so anything that happens to them is entirely legal because they don't exist as a legal entity in our sight."
The end game is open season on anyone who "looks illegal".
I suspect that was probably not as much on their mind as the prospect of a US territory temporarily occupied by a foreign military. I fully anticipated that they would attempt this comparison (despite clearly subjecting illegal immigrants to the jurisdiction). Even if it is incorrect, I could at least see them making that attempt.
I'm surprised that they are trying to extend this to include people legally in the US, with every legal basis to be here and no whiff of any vaguely dubious relationship with jurisdiction..
Say what you will about Trump, but he sure knows how to get us to learn about the Constitution!
That phase seems to say you have to be solely subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I.e., that you couldn’t also later claim to be a citizen (or subject to laws of) another nation.
At least that’s what an article I read said, which wasn’t written in direct response to this EO.
It doesn't say solely. If they meant solely they would have written that. It's very obvious it means if you have to obey the laws then you count. Diplomats with immunity don't count.
Edit: As further evidence, you're subject to state laws as well, not just the United States laws.
Welcome to US constitutional law!
So, why did they write it?
I said in the comment above, it's to not include people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Diplomats with immunity, for example. It's reasonable obvious. You really have to try to stretch things to make it apply to immigrants who are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Yes, that was the opinion of the Supreme Court in 1898. This is a different SC and, as we’ve already seen, are perfectly willing to overturn precedent. From the dissent:
My point is.. you don’t actually know why they wrote that clause because it’s not entirely clear and, thus, subject to further debate at this new court.
The laws don't have to make sense as long as they're in power.
Even then, they'll likely rig the 2026 elections, to get a supermajority, so they can just replace the constitution with one that is 100% compatible with christofascism.
Unless they completely throw out the Constitution they still have to let the states run elections. And the States generally aren't interested in rigging their elections.
Don't you worry, this will also be retroactive! People will have their American citizenship taken away.
I was worried about this and had to check, the executive order text has a section which states it only applies to those born 30 days after the signing of the EO. Who knows what the fuck the supreme court will extrapolate that to, though.
What would that mean for foreigners detained for crimes committed outside the USA? We had a bunch of people in Guantanamo at one point who met those circumstances.
I can't see how this would work. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part refers to the children born in the US, not their parents. But don't quote me on this, I'm not a lawyer.