He would have to deport his children then. Isn't trump the son of a Scottish immigrant himself?
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
68 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19103 readers
3503 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No, but SCOTUS can "reinterpret" the 14th Amendment. They've already taken the argument for a first date and they really liked it.
[Sane People] claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
If you missed it, they're claiming that undocumented people are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which is a really great way to lie, They're hoping people don't understand their big words. Jurisdiction means to have authority over and enforce laws upon. If the US didn't have authority over undocumented people then there could be no deportations, arrests, speeding tickets, or HOA complaints against them. It's ridiculous on it's face but at least it's not being pushed by a reputable organization like the Heritage Foundation.
If you do go read the rest of it, don't forget they're showing a very one sided take of definitions that's favorable to them. They aren't writing this as a good faith educational piece. For example, we know that courts and the government routinely ignored parts of the reconstruction era acts and Amendments until over a hundred years later. Relying on the opinions of those doing the ignoring is another way for them to talk fast and hope you don't realize what they've done.
That's some Sov Cit level legal gymnastics.
"This undocumented immigrant is just travelling, we have no jurisdiction over them"
Yup. And just like a SovCit they're going to claim we don't understand the magic words.
Can he end it? Probably not.
Can he sweep up US citizens in his quest to destroy our economy, food supply, and housing?
Absolutely
Don't forget low-level healthcare like nursing home and everything hospitality related!
Why housing though? Labor? Might come out in the wash having more rooms available.
It's gonna be fun if they crack down on immigration and someone argues that kethamine karen is not american and has to go...
Fun fact: Elon Musk was an illegal immigrant
The reason this is relevant is because he has spent the better part of a year complaining about “illegal immigrants” who are “invading” the country. But an old video from 2013 resurfaced on Saturday that appears to show the billionaire admitting he was at one point building his small business in the country illegally, describing it as a “gray area.”
"Musk called his immigration status a 'gray area' while discussing the 1990s."
**Edit: Here is a link to the video set to the timestamp where he discusses it.
Another fun fact is Trump's wife was as well.
And his rhetoric around "anchor babies". Such hypocrisy.
"Though it’s impossible to say what the Supreme Court may ultimately decide, history and precedent isn’t on Trump’s side."
"Hold my beer squee"
i can understand history not being on trumps side, but i don’t understand how “precedent” is not on his side. the precedent from the last several years is that the supreme court does not care too much about “precedent”.
History and precedent suck this guy's balls constantly
With 2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House, and 3/4 of the states' legislatures.
All they need is 5 SCOTUS justices to agree the text means whatever.
Then you need a different SCOTUS session to disagree or all of that to fix the text
They used a 1600s law from before we were a country to rationalize overturning Roe v Wade. This SCOTUS had a supermajority of corrupt Justices willing to twist the law into whatever the Federalist Society wants it to say.
With SCOTUS the Constitution says whatever they say it does. We had a chance to fix that situation and we blew it.
LOL, how cute. You think that still matters.
Nothing stopping both houses from just reducing the threshhold because fuck you that's why, getting Trump to sign off on it, then getting backing by the Supreme Court. Sure, that's completely at odds with the Constitution, but who's left to enforce it?
We already know that at least half the states will just blindly go along with it and say it's to control immigration, or just because MAGA, or because fuck you that's why. Threaten the rest with withholding of all federal funding until they get on board and watch how many fall in line. Sure, that's even more highly illegal, but again......who's going to stop them? Laws don't mean shit if there is nobody willing or able to enforce them.
Republicans have just over 50% of the Senate and the House. They don’t have a 2/3 supermajority.
They’ll still pass the legislation by voting in a block, but they can’t push it through without a vote if they don’t have a supermajority.
They have the supreme court, which basically allows them to interpret laws anyway they want. Why bother with an the work of changing laws when they can just reinterpret them?
2/3rds 2/3rds and 3/4ths are the requirements for a constitutional amendment, which is the requirement to change the citizenship granting mechanism for the country.
Or for SCOTUS to just decide the words mean something different now like a true 'originalist'
Their plan is to claim that the children of undocumented immigrants are somehow not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not granted citizenship based on the 14th amendment.
Yes, it really is as stupid as it sounds; claiming that undocumented immigration gives your descendants the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.
Oh, I misunderstood.
Yes, that’s if he intends to amend the Constitution. Lucky for him, he can deviate from the Constitution all he wants without repercussions, since the Republican controlled Congress will not hold him accountable to the document, and the conservative SCOTUS will not overturn an unconstitutional law.
the conservative SCOTUS will not overturn an unconstitutional law.
I think you might be surprised here. Conservative judges are inclined to follow the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution at the time it was written. There's not much wiggle room in this:
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.
They just need to redefine "persons."
I could imagine them trying to include corporations... but seriously, Constitutional textualism is a cornerstone of what it means to be a conservative judge. They're pretty content to ignore or reverse precedent, but not to get creative about something spelled out plainly in the Constitution.
Lmao, "what it means to be a conservative judge"
Bruh there are no values, being a conservative judge just means youre either comically dumb and fail upwards, or you are actually pretty smart, lack any sort of morals or decency, and know how to manipulate yhose around you for your benefit and their loss.
Lets not try to write conservatives as if they actually have something they stand behind now
... but not to get creative about something spelled out plainly in the Constitution.
And yet, presidents now have extremely wide criminal immunity.
There's nothing in the text of the Constitution that says they don't.
Like most sane people, I think that decision was overly broad and has dangerous implications. On the other hand, if Congress could make crimes about Article 2 powers, that would effectively allow Congress to take those powers for itself by statute, overruling the Constitution's assignment of them to the president.