Summary
Donald Trump has pledged to end birthright citizenship through an executive order if re-elected, targeting the 14th Amendment’s provision that grants citizenship to all born in the U.S.
Critics argue this policy would defy the Constitution, specifically its post-Civil War intent to ensure citizenship for former slaves.
Legal experts widely agree that the Amendment’s language includes children born to undocumented parents, but Trump’s proposal could lead to an immediate legal battle.
The policy would require federal agencies to verify parents’ immigration status, complicating access to Social Security numbers and passports for U.S.-born children.
Dude wants to help Musk become president.
He wants lawsuits so he can appeal to the Supreme Court and they’ll rule in his favor.
He only wants to get rid of Leon.
See, logic would dictate that this would be immediately laughed out of court since a change of this magnitude would require a Constitutional Amendment. The 14th amendment does not say it only applies to certain people or under certain circumstances.
Then I remembered what timeline we’re in. Trump will have this gleefully rammed through Congress, and the Supreme Court will uphold it based on the long-standing legal principle of “Yeah, but they’re brown…”
And this is how Trump invalidates the Constitution. Not by decree. But by spending 4 years sidestepping the Constitution and telling his base that it’s just an outdated piece of paper with a bunch of guidelines that can be safely ignored the minute they become inconvenient. Or at least, inconvenient for Republicans.
And he’ll do it to thunderous applause.
It’s been a week but feels like people are finally getting it.
There’s no checks and balances left, of all we have to hope is a line written on some paper many years ago, we’re fucked.
Will there be enough Republicans in the House and Senate to pass laws like that without Democrat support? All they’ll have is a simple majority in both.
SCROTUS “reinterpreting” all the laws is the fascists’ best bet, I think.
Those Democrats have careers and families they care about. It doesn’t take much pressure to own a few of them. Especially without checks and balances and add in some bootlicking appointees to the three letter agencies.
They’d need more than a few, though, more like dozens. It’ll just be all-out fascism without even a pretense of legitimacy at that point.
I’m pretty certain all out fascism is what we’re going to have. A handful of Democrats are not enough to hold democracy together. I don’t think it will be long before there’s not even a pretense of that being the case.
I’m unfortunately inclined to agree.
Yes. Simple majority is all that’s needed in the House on most if not all matters anyway. And the only thing that would be in the GOP’s way would be the filibuster, which they can hand-wave away any time they want with a simple majority vote.
And keep in mind. They can just make up the rules as they go along now. They can literally play Calvinball with the Constitution. If Trump demands it, and the House and Senate vote for it, and the Supreme Court rubber stamps it, and the majority of state governments either go with it or at least don’t oppose it…who’s gonna stop them?
If Trump feels like saying that the 14th no longer applies to brown people because fuck you that’s why, and Congress votes in favor of a law that says the 14th no longer applies to brown people, and the Supreme Court says “Yep, fuck brown people.”, then that’s the law of the land regardless of what we think of it, because we individually do not have the power to stop it, and collectively just voted in favor of it.
And keep in mind…there’s nothing stopping Trump from replacing “the 14th no longer applies to brown people” with “Women no longer have the right to vote” or “Freedom of the Press does not apply to those critical of the Trump administration”. If no branch of government is willing to uphold and enforce the law, the law may as well not exist. The same goes for your rights and protections.
To be fair the 14th amendment was really only intended to give freed slaves citizenship. Which is something I’m sure the Supreme Court will cite as part of “original intent” they justify so many rulings with.
“Actually, we find that the 14th amendment really only applies to foreign white people, as the original founding fathers were slave owners who did not view either black or native american people as actual people, and certainly would not have granted them citizenship. Given the original intent of the Founding fathers, not only do we rule that the 14th amendment only applies to foreign white people, but we are simultaneously invalidating the Civil Rights act of 1964, reversing the previous Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, and striking down the 19th amendment as an unconstitutional violation of the original intent of the Founding Fathers.”
– This supreme court, very possibly.
So were the 1800’s wave of European immigrants, that most white americans descended from, mostly naturalized or did they just use the 14th amendment too? I’m not be factious, I actually don’t know but always assumed it was the former.
Well, it was the 1800s, so I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of the time they just took the person’s word for it in the rare situations where it mattered, and how successful you were was probably based on how rich and white you looked. Think of it…how the hell was someone in Atlanta, Ga. supposed to prove or disprove whether the man standing in front of him was or wasn’t born in Boston, Ma? It’s not like they could call and verify or something. Probably little more than “Yeah, you look like you could be from Boston. You’re good.”
It was the state’s burden to prove otherwise.
Thank you my good man.
The 14th amendment does not say it only applies to certain people or under certain circumstances.
It does have one circumstance:
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’m trying to figure out how they will argue that immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
I’ve only heard that applied to foreign diplomats. Because the parents have diplomatic immunity, they and their children aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
I think I figured it out… Diplomats are not actually the only persons who can be within American borders without being subject to American law. Another category is “Enemy Combatant”.
Remember that Texas has declared immigrants to be invaders.
If they aren’t, then border patrol would have no grounds to detain them. ICE could not deport them…
Try this on for size: Trump follows Texas’s lead, and declares them to be invaders. Enemy combatants aren’t subject to the laws of the nation they are invading.
Trump can argue that Border Patrol is performing a military role, rather than a law enforcement role.
Considering it’s how his followers already use their Bible, we can assume they have the same level of “reverence” for the constitution.
The only hope I hold onto is that we need a constitutional convention anyway. If this convinces states to actually trigger an Article 5 convention, then I’m all for it.
No. No, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no.
Trump has returned to power. He has both houses of Congress under his thumb, and control of the Supreme Court. A majority of states are Republican controlled, with many state governments having GOP supermajorities. People such as Jim Jordan, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are in positions of influence, and people like RFK and Bald Dracula Stephen Miller are going to be filling top government positions.
**These are the people who would be writing up a new Constitution. ** Democrats would largely have the privilege of sitting on the sidelines and having about as much input in the process as a 3rd string quarterback calling plays at the Super Bowl. A Constitution written by these people would make the Handmaid’s Tale seem like a liberal paradise by comparison.
Trump is already taking a giant shit on the Constitution and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet. The last thing we need to do is make his job infinitely easier by calling for a Constitutional Convention any time in the foreseeable future.
Have you seen our states?
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.
Easy - declare that kids of illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then the 14th amendment doesn’t apply!
Of course you’d probably still need legislation to do that, if not an amendment.
I think he wants us to shit ourselves in public about this stuff so he can mock us, but the grandiose gestures he’s throwing around right now are mostly just laughably stupid. I’m still preparing for the shitstorm but I don’t think the big noises he’s making now are telegraphing the real plays.
“A mountain of opposition” to the public, maybe, but all the bitching from the ACLU, et al will mean nothing to a Republican majority in Congress.
“Official act.” That’s all it’ll take, I’m calling it now.
deleted by creator
Of all the Supreme Court precedents that are going on the chopping block, I certainly did not expect United States v. Wong Kim Ark on that list.
Surprise? He’s threatened to throw out the constitution because “we don’t need it.” And he has SCOTUS and Congress to let him do what he wants. Plus he’ll have an AG that will basically be his lawyer. Trump is going to do whatever he wants.
Fingers crossed that we have immortalized the constitution so hard that the military would coup him over this. Crazy that’s a thing I’m wishing for. Revolution would be cooler but this is America.
wow, how lucky we are that the ultimate deciders on litigation are not a bunch of partisans hacks, right?
Genuine question: what happens to someone born in the US to non citizens? If they were born in the states, would they not have the citizenship of their parents country? At that point would they just have no citizenship anywhere?
I’m sure if it came down to it their parents home country might grant their child citizenship, but it probably won’t be guaranteed…
Basically only people with money would be able to ‘earn’ citizenship I suspect. Anyone else is left out of school, social programs, etc purposely.
They would be stateless, yes
sovereign citizens have entered the chat
I’m not aware of any country where the child would not automatically be eligible for the parents citizenship, even if the child is born abroad.
New SC Justice Cannon has entered the chat.
We are so seriously fucked.
Shit’s fucked
'Murica zealots who claim to love the Constitution have elected someone who wants to shred it. This is the darkest timeline.
The Constitution gets shredded regularly. It’s a failed document.
My brother in Christ his family were immigrants here at one point, not to mention his wife and her parents…
My brother in Christ his family were immigrants here at one point, not to mention his wife and her parents…
But she had a decent rack 20 years ago so that qualifies her and everybody associated with her under the “look at those tits, tho” exception.
Yeah but they bought their citizenship, they didn’t have it given to them by some stupid thing like the Constitution. Plus, they’re the “right kind” of immigrants. Wink wink.
When they say it’s about race, it’s about class. When they say it is about class, it’s about gender. And when they say it’s out gender, it’s about race.
Or at least that’s how it feels sometimes.
It’s about making a white christofascists nation, with Trump in it for the white fascism part (I think his narcissism has him put himself above religion).
Other races, lower classes and LGBT.
Republican’s only need their voters to be two things:
- Hates one of the above.
- Doesn’t give a shit about the other two.
So they are incentivised to scatter shot and hurt as many people as possible to get the maximum number of votes… America is fucked.
deleted by creator
Dipshit whose family were immigrants wants to destroy immigration.
Peak ‘pulling the ladder up behind him.’
Unpopular opinion here, perhaps, but I don’t see the logic of birthright citizenship beyond its original intent of granting citizenship to former slaves. I actually think ending it might help some of the border crisis stuff. What other countries have it? The idea that at least one parent needs to be a citizen does not sound insane to me.
I think adding a legal unskilled temporary worker status might also mitigate the humanitarian issues.
What am I missing?
What other countries have it?
Countries influenced by English common law, so nearly every country in North and South America, Australia, and Europe.
You can’t possibly see the downside of people being born in your country but not having the same rights as citizens? What makes you think slavery wouldn’t return if it were ended?
deleted by creator
To be fair, it’s only the countries in dark blue on that map that have it. The light blue countries have something like one of your parents has to be a citizen/settled, which is what the previous commenter was suggesting as an alternative.
Thank you
You should really read up on things like H1B visas then. They were for skilled workers and still got abused in a variety of ways including to suppress wages and get more or less indentured workers. I know places like GameStop loved them because the person would basically forfeit their visas if they quit so could abuse them more than a regular worker.
The more power an employer has over a worker and the less rights people who live in the country have, the worse it will be in general.
Hospitals abuse the fuck out of H1B visas.
I will do some reading then, thanks
It looks like much of the Western Hemisphere has jus soli. A quick search says:
- Colombia
- Peru
- Venezuela
- Ecuador
- Paraguay
- Canada
- Mexico
- Argentina
- Brazil
- Chile
- Uruguay
What I can’t say is whether, with the exception of Canada and the U.S., that has any impact on the immigration of those countries. I will cop to ignorance, but many of those countries don’t seem like they would be a big step up in the world for most people.
I have a friend from Brazil. I don’t think he’d recommend being from Brazil. He moved to Portugal.
I know basically nothing about any of those countries other than having vacationed in Mexico twice. I haven’t seen anyone say they are fed up with the U.S. and moving to Paraguay.
I know basically nothing about any of those countries other than having vacationed in Mexico twice. I haven’t seen anyone say they are fed up with the U.S. and moving to Paraguay.
Note: Mexicans have been emigrating out of USA for about a full decade now.
So statistically speaking, Mexicans have been saying they’re tired of USA and have moved back to Mexico.
English common law: a citizen is born in a land and that land was owned by a king. As such, the citizen and the land are like one. Citizens based upon birth are owed protection by the local king, while the local king is owed the work of said citizens.
The tradition of birthright citizenship is far older than the 14th Amendment. People were arguing about this crap in the middle ages.
the border crisis stuff
What “border crisis stuff”? There are no massive groups of people crossing the border illegally, all of the talk about that is GOP propaganda.
The majority of illegal immigrants in the US enter the country legally and then overstay their visas.
The only “crisis” is racists and xenophobes getting their testes in a twist about becoming a minority race and maybe having to learn a second language. People traveling hundreds of miles just to come here and commit crimes is a stupid argument for stupid people. The stats also don’t hold up as far as crime goes. They’re much less likely to commit crimes over fear of deportation. And all of the actual drug dealers that enter the country illegally will probably be back in the US in under a month of being deported.
Not exactly. The current majority are claiming asylum at the border and then get lost in the system, no-showing court dates, etc. That’s why the border bill this year had provisions for more judges to expedite the process.
I’m 100% for humanitarian alternatives to help people whose countries are not safe. Full stop.
I’m not sure that it’s fair to handwave away the idea that there’s a crisis as GOP propaganda when both Obama and Trump called it one. I don’t think it’s fair to say that there’s no massive groups coming when between 2021 and 2024 7.2 million migrants were encountered by border officials, and that number does not include migrants who successfully made it through. And Biden deported more migrants in 3 years than Trump did in 4.
I don’t claim to be an expert on this topic by any means. I am open to other ideas. But there is, I think, a valid issue here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico–United_States_border_crisis?wprov=sfla1
First off it really really fucking sucks to be stateless.
Secondly, if you grew up in America and got an American education, you’re American enough for me. We’ve invested a big chunk of money into training you so it’d be swell if you’d put that education to use in the American economy.
Lastly, as one of the favorite shirts on res points out - why the fuck do you assume you’re American anyways:
Honest question, do most countries in the Americas withhold citizenship from children born to citizens of that country who happen to be abroad? I’m just trying to understand how big the stateless thing would be
Cool, you still can’t override a constitutional amendment via executive order if you want to pretend that law matters.
No, but the Supreme Court can by “reinterpreting” the Amendment.
