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.
Not sure how he plans on deporting people who were born in the United States and have no citizenship anywhere else since not every country automatically gives it to people's children born abroad.
They would effectively have no home country to deport them too.
Meaning they will stay in the concentration camps until Trump's Final Solution is implemented.
i wish everyone would get rid of the assumption that the constitution will protect you
"that's unconstitutional!!!" doesn't mean jack shit anymore
Every maga is downplaying his shit right now. “Not gonna happen” is what they all say.
Latino men who voted for Trump right now:
Nah, they still think, “not me”
right until they get back to Habbanah, then they're going to be "¿o no como puede seh que me lansan fuera de ehtadoh unidoh?"
Haha yeah, they are about to find out.
Who could have possibly seen this coming?
This piece of shit is just trying to get rid of his wife and unattractive children.
Like his wife and his DOGE crony?
The rules do not apply to the rich. I think at this point he has made that clear over and over again.
Anyone in the US who believes they have any sort of legal protection is just delusional. The only protection that exists there is through money.
We're basically going back to an older era where rights are much less certain. Think of the rights people in the US had before Roe v Wade. Yep, we are basically back to before Roe v Wade was passed. That's the America we live in.
I am not a lawyer, this is my interpretation of the situation.
So heres what I think will happen.
Birthright citizenship will not be completely gone.
To recap, 14th Amendment, Section1 says:
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.
What will most likely happen is the DoJ under trump will take it to the supreme court, then the 6 conservatives will rule that unauthorized immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", so therefore their children do not get citizenship at birth. Maybe this is retroactive, maybe it applies from then on, I don't know.
But thats the most likely scenario.
Because we had a very conservative court back in the 1898 (remember, black people in this era couldn't even vote in southern states) that ruled that (United States v. Wong Kim Ark)
a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
So I doubt this supreme court is more conservative than a 1898 supreme court so they most likely are not overturning that.
Basically, that court ruled that children of permanent residents have birthright citizenship, but never ruled on whether children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship. This 6-3 supreme court is gonna answer that. Which is gonna be a no, unfortunately.
I concur with your interpretation. But as for your final line, I’m not sure why this interpretation is unfortunate. We need to streamline and overhaul the immigration process for sure, but why is encouraging unregulated immigration a good thing?
I say unfortunately because there could be problems with a child of an undocumented immigrant that is born and grew up in the US for their entire life, then suddenly losing their citizenship because of a court decision.
Maybe if the decision did not apply retroactively, then I'd might be okay with it.
Oh yeah, that’s definitely a bad outcome, I agree. Thankfully retroactive laws seem to be much harder to pass.
I enjoy the notion that they would argue that undocumented immigrants are not subject to US law in the fashion that diplomats aren't subject to US law, since that would effectively prevent anything except deportation as a punishment for crimes.
"Your children can't be citizens, but you can murder with impunity until we ask you to leave".
Lol dont give them ideas. They could treat them as "Enemy Aliens", putting them in guantanamo.
More likely, a lower court shoots it down, and there's no basis for an appeals court to do anything different. They tweak it and try again. That one also fails. Try again.
Eventually, they get something that threads the needle. This is how the "Muslim ban" went.
I mean, the supreme court could always pull out the "Original Jurisdiction" BS and take it straight there.
There are two other factors at work:
Even if we assume they're just going to bypass the usual ladder up the federal court system, they can't do that on everything just as a practical matter.
14th Amendment to the US Constitution
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Start by getting rid of Ted Cruz, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Melania and all the Trump kids.
Isn't it crazy that only one person on that list is just a mere millionaire, the rest are billionaires?
Jr posted "Internet let's do your thing, let's find this guy" because he knew it was attack on his class.
If we want to Make America Great Again we needed to get rid of these parasites. They make us fight with each other, while they are the reason we get poorer and poorer.
Whether or not children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship was never ruled on. A 1898 case (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) ruled that children of permanent residents have birthright citizenship, but never said anything about unauthorized immigrants.
This supreme court could rule on it, which is probably gonna be that unauthorized immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", therefore, their children do not get birthright citizenship.
I mean that's the loophole they are gonna exploit, I don't agree with it, but that's what is gonna happen.
If they're not "subject to the jurisdiction", doesn't that mean they can just commit whatever crimes they want? Could they even be deported?
But that assumes the Republicans would be logical and consistent, when they are neither.
Nah.
If, say, a foreign countey invaded the us.
Ok, say, Canada invaded New York. People born in New York after Canada's invasion no longer have birthright citizenship. And let's say, the US had a federal abortion ban nationwide. You are born in Canadian Occupied New York. You are a woman. You accidentally got pregnant. No worries, you just get an abortion, its legal in Canada.
Okay a few month after you get the abortion, the US counterattacks and recaptures New York.
You are still not gonna be a US citizen.
But you got an illegal abortion. You are gonna go on trial for getting an illegal abortion.
Nope you are still not a citizen.
#Shenanigans.
They are going to claim that if their patents are here illegally they aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. No matter how stupid that idea is their supreme court may let it go anyway. They already shit all over other parts of the 14th.
Doesn't saying they're not "subject to jurisdiction" mean they're outside general reach of the legal system, like a crime-drama character claiming diplomatic immunity?
I'd love to see someone pull that string.
Birthright. If you are born here, you are a citizen. That's what they are talkin1g about.
14A S3 wasn't enforced, why should 14A S1 be?
Because it wasn't previously decided. However, in this case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is the Supreme Court ruling that determined the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States regardless of race or nationality.
In order to reverse, the court itself has to do it. Not that it wouldn't.
Not all persons, but children of permanent residents. (children of US citizens already has birthright citizenship, they are expanding onto that)
The issue of unauthorized immigrants were never answered in the court case.
Yeah, it's there, but as we've clearly seen, if the law isn't enforced, or is selectively enforced, it might as well not exist.
Hell this exact amendment was openly ignored for nearly a century in that it is also meant to provide equality under the law for all citizens. But Women couldn't even vote for decades after this amendment was passed. Then there were a ton of laws on the books that were actively enforced that discriminated on race, sex, etc. Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement should not have been necessary after this amendment was passed. And yet....