this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
328 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3549 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

(page 2) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 69 points 2 days ago (25 children)

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.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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..

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They would be stateless, yes

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

Basically only people with money would be able to 'earn' citizenship I suspect. Anyone else is left out of school, social programs, etc purposely.

[–] [email protected] 79 points 2 days ago (4 children)

My brother in Christ his family were immigrants here at one point, not to mention his wife and her parents..

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 65 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

Other races, lower classes and LGBT.

Republican's only need their voters to be two things:

  1. Hates one of the above.
  2. 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

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).

[–] [email protected] 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

“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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

"Official act." That's all it'll take, I'm calling it now.

[–] [email protected] 115 points 2 days ago

wow, how lucky we are that the ultimate deciders on litigation are not a bunch of partisans hacks, right?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And how likely is it that a conservative majority SC will stand up to Trump?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Same chance as Trump choking on a piece of hamberder

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›