674
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

Donald Trump signed an executive order to challenge birthright citizenship, targeting children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S.

The order argues against the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship for those born on U.S. soil.

It bars federal agencies from recognizing birthright citizenship and imposes a 30-day waiting period for enforcement.

The order is expected to face significant legal challenges, with critics calling it unconstitutional.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

I noticed a trend with Trump's executive order spree yesterday - almost all of them are just fluff or red meat for the base that don't have any effect on anything, like the one defining genders, and others are so blatantly unconstitutional that they will be challenged and most likely never implemented, like the one in question terminating birthright citizenship - it's guaranteed to go before the courts and get struck down. Doing something like that would require an constitutional amendment.

He's counting on the goldfish brain base to give him credit for doing these wacky things and then not pay attention three weeks from now when an ACLU lawsuit essentially puts the order in limbo before it dies in front of a judge.

Trump might as well sign an executive order that declares himself Emperor of the Moon and Supreme Chancellor of Outer Space, it'll have about the same amount of impact as this first round of executive orders will.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 year ago

t’s guaranteed to go before the courts and get struck down

If only trump controlled the highest court in all the land. A "supreme" court, if you will.

That said, trump and his allies have been pretty open that the idea is to spam EOs to demoralize people and distract them from what they are really doing. And, in this case, Legal Eagle (and Liz Dye) kind of already explained it:

The idea will be to declare a border crisis (done) to give the potus wider reaching powers. Same with declaring Mexican cartels as terrorists (they kind of are, but not to us). The combination of those mean they can invade sanctuary cities under "national security" excuses and can argue that illegal immigrants are enemy combatants which DO have a carve out.

The "quirk" of Kamala no longer being a citizen because her parents were here under student (?) visas MIGHT get struck down. But the real goal of populating labor camps with brown people is right on track.

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

If Trump actually controlled the Supreme Court, we never would have had a president Biden. The Supreme Court mainly cares about increasing their own power. They'd never allow the office of the president to have the power to overturn the constitution by fiat.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 year ago

...

trump has a ruling from the supreme court that he can't be punished for anything that he considers an "official act". And the entire point of "stop the steal" and "stall for time" was to get the 2020 election up in front of the supreme court. Instead, pence showed a backbone for the only time in his life and it became a violent insurrection attempt instead.

[-] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago

They literally ruled that anything Trump does is an official act, and he cannot be charged for it. And, he already has self-pardon, so any "loophole" the SCOTUS comes up with, he just pardons himself.

And, he sends men with guns, under an official act, to get rid of the SCOTUS justices that disagreed with him... And he will select new ones.

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

Trump might as well sign an executive order that declares himself Emperor of the Moon and Supreme Chancellor of Outer Space, it’ll have about the same amount of impact as this first round of executive orders will.

Look, not to call you out or anything, but the impact of these edicts (however nonsensical) is radically different now that he's in office.

The problem isn't the legitimacy or legality of any such order, it's the veracity and scope to which they are carried out regardless of those facts. He just pardoned the Jan 6th insurrectionists. Now, people that are handed off-the-wall, yet much more clear, orders from the White House can now go on thinking that illegal activity pursued in the name of said order will be washed away. So, stuff like this will cause damage to be done well before any courts can intervene, constitutionality be damned.

As a bonus, this adds culpability to the actions of his subordinates. Step in line or lose your job. Fail me after committing a crime and you go straight to prison. This is an organized crime tactic to keep shady people in line.

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

That's the key. With these ECs and the pardons, Trump's lackies are free to do whatever they want, using these as an excuse. If anything does happen to them, Trump made it clear he'll pardon them. and if Trump is scrutinized, he's got the SC on his side who just gave the president unlimited power. And if push comes to shove, he'll just pardon himself.

There is literally nothing holding him accountable anymore. Nothing and no one.

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

I understand that. What I'm hoping is that the rest of the members of government will remember that Trump cannot do it without them. All an executive order really is, at it's core, is direction for how federal agencies should conduct their business. None of it circumvents congress or the courts. Yes, I know, those two branches of government aren't on our side either, but at the very least I expect them to be slimy enough to know when they have leverage and use it to their advantage - stall out or kill legislation before it has a chance to become anything more than just an executive order full of hot air if for no reason other than to extract concessions from Trump. It all adds up.

[-] ubergeek@lemmy.today 5 points 1 year ago

None of it circumvents congress or the courts.

If the SCOTUS thinks it should, then it will. Which they will, since they are beholden to Donold.

[-] ubergeek@lemmy.today 15 points 1 year ago

it’s guaranteed to go before the courts and get struck down. Doing something like that would require an constitutional amendment.

lolwut?

With this SCOTUS, they will pluck the case out of the line, before it goes down any circuit, and they will issue a ruling declaring it constitutional.

That's what happens when you have a bought-and-paid-for SCOTUS.

[-] ECB@feddit.org 5 points 1 year ago

They'll probably strike down one or two of them just so they can claim "look, we're still independent!!"

Of course the ones to get struck down have already been agreed upon

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