176
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 128 points 1 week ago

Fourteenth Amendment 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.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I don't get how you square those two together.

[-] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 57 points 1 week ago

Probably with “The founders only wanted what I think they wanted, despite their explicit instructions”

[-] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 48 points 1 week ago

Interpreting old texts to match their own personal beliefs is what Christo fascists are best at.

[-] whostosay@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

And they're not even fucking good at that. The only thing they truly excel at is spreading hate.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

Look no further than the dissent to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (when the Supreme Court ruled that the passage you cited grants citizenship by birthright), written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the mastermind behind such legal opinions as:

  • Racial segregation is completely legal (Plessy v. Ferguson)
  • States can't regulate workplace conditions or enact maximum working hours laws (Lochner v. New York)
  • Income tax is unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust)

Anyway, he wrote:

the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute

and

[Birthright citizenship means] the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

So in other words, he was willing to rule that the constitution is optional as long as you are using it against undesirable races in order to get his way.

[-] anubis119@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

It's why they used the language of "invaders". 14th amendment doesn't provide protection for invaders. This is the first step in working around the constitution.

[-] Arbiter@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Don’t worry, the bootlickers in the Supreme Court will find the dumbest argument you ever heard to rationalize it.

[-] Cool_Name@lemm.ee 46 points 1 week ago

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?

[-] mkwt@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago

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?

[-] credo@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago

The laws don't have to make sense as long as they're in power.

[-] thomas@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 week ago

Constitutional lawyers are going to be making a fortune over the next 4 years. Fuck you America. Just fuck y'all.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

The payload

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:

(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or

(2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Which is absolutely ridiculous. In the first case if they aren't subject to your jurisdiction then you cannot deport them. And in the second they would not need a visa. You can't have it both ways. You can't make them subject to our laws without them being subject to the United State's Jurisdiction.

[-] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago

Stay tuned for a new constitutional crisis every day!

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

Just one per day? I'm expecting at least two.

[-] Zier@fedia.io 18 points 1 week ago

We can finally deport Ted Cruz. Pack your bags bitch!

[-] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

No. Keep him. Kevin o'leary too.

[-] N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 week ago

The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for by right wing special interest organizations like the Heritage Foundation. This obviously illegal order will be upheld. At best, there might be a single right wing judge that crosses to make it a 4-vote dissent.

The rule of law is dead in America. This has been planned since the Painter memo in 1971. The fascist takeover is happening.

[-] zabadoh@ani.social 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Would you like to know more?

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Trump’s SCOTUS will take care of this, no problem.

this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
176 points (99.4% liked)

News

24235 readers
2250 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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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