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.
states should arrest border patrol agents attempting this.
Democrats should threaten to charge anyone attempting this of human trafficking.
Except for the liberal bubbles in Houston and Dallas, I’m pretty sure most Texans are pretty gung-ho in favor of this and will be giving border patrol agents free lunches. No ICE, DHS, or Border Patrol agents will be getting arrest by the southern states
You’re forgetting Arizona and California. Arizona’s Blue Wave is particularly left leaning too…
supposing democrats wake up a little (fat chance) federal democrats should say that they will ensure any person that attempts to act outaside the guardrails of the constitution will be charged with crimes when they regain power.
deleted by creator
I think recent events have shown Democrats are incapable of helping anybody but themselves. And even then they’re shit.
Some of the state parties have considerably more teeth.
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.
That’s not true. Even diplomats, who this clause was written for, can be expelled from the country.
Even that’s a limited form of jurisdiction. Managed by treaty, the same level as the Constitution.
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?
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?
I suspect that was probably not as much on their mind as the prospect of a US territory temporarily occupied by a foreign military. I fully anticipated that they would attempt this comparison (despite clearly subjecting illegal immigrants to the jurisdiction). Even if it is incorrect, I could at least see them making that attempt.
I’m surprised that they are trying to extend this to include people legally in the US, with every legal basis to be here and no whiff of any vaguely dubious relationship with jurisdiction…
The answer there is easy and horrifying. Since they’re “not subject to” the law of the US, you can basically declare them outlaws. The od-school use of the term, basically meaning “this person exists outside of legal sight, so anything that happens to them is entirely legal because they don’t exist as a legal entity in our sight.”
The end game is open season on anyone who “looks illegal”.
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.
Even then, they’ll likely rig the 2026 elections, to get a supermajority, so they can just replace the constitution with one that is 100% compatible with christofascism.
What would that mean for foreigners detained for crimes committed outside the USA? We had a bunch of people in Guantanamo at one point who met those circumstances.
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.
It doesn’t say solely. If they meant solely they would have written that. It’s very obvious it means if you have to obey the laws then you count. Diplomats with immunity don’t count.
Edit: As further evidence, you’re subject to state laws as well, not just the United States laws.
Welcome to US constitutional law!
So, why did they write it?
I said in the comment above, it’s to not include people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Diplomats with immunity, for example. It’s reasonable obvious. You really have to try to stretch things to make it apply to immigrants who are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Yes, that was the opinion of the Supreme Court in 1898. This is a different SC and, as we’ve already seen, are perfectly willing to overturn precedent. From the dissent:
In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native gov.
My point is… you don’t actually know why they wrote that clause because it’s not entirely clear and, thus, subject to further debate at this new court.
Don’t you worry, this will also be retroactive! People will have their American citizenship taken away.
The laws don’t have to make sense as long as they’re in power.
Constitutional lawyers are going to be making a fortune over the next 4 years. Fuck you America. Just fuck y’all.
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.
This commenter is correct, this is largely the result of the work of the Heritage Foundation and it’s been a half-century in the making. This would be the appropriate time to arm yourselves (get a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Start networking with like-minded people in your communities. Learn basic first aid, you just need to know how to stabilize someone. Learn to fix things, grow food, be more self-reliant. The police will not protect us and things may get very bad in the coming decade.
Stay tuned for a new constitutional crisis every day!
Just one per day? I’m expecting at least two.
We can finally deport Ted Cruz. Pack your bags bitch!
No. Keep him. Kevin o’leary too.
Only if you promise to make the entire US your 14th Province, or no deal!
Would you like to know more?
very fucking funny (by which I mean not funny at all) that I can take the test, pay roughly a grand, and be considered more secure in my citizenship than someone born here.
You jest but serving in the US military is a legit way to gain citizenship.
That’s currently true, but I was also referring to the universe of Starship Troopers (the movie, vs the Heinlein novel), where it appears that birthright citizenship is no more, and military service (to the crypto-fascist government) is the only realistic path to citizenship for most US residents in that universe.
I was under the impression that only US citizens could serve, no?
Oh no. You can volunteer without citizenship.
They can say no, but we have non citizens serving.
deleted by creator
It’s not a guarantee, though, but it should be. If you serve for, say, 5 years and have not been dishonorably discharged, you should be automatically eligible for citizenship.
As of now, serving only exempts you from the continuous residence and physical presence requirements. You still need to be a permanent resident, know English, understand the US government and history, and demonstrate “good moral character” for at least a year out of the military.
Permanent residency shouldn’t be mandated for soldiers. They’re choosing to serve for the US - isn’t that enough? The English and US government/history requirement should be waived under the assumption that they understand all of those well enough after training and serving in the military. Good moral character really is just that you haven’t committed any serious crime which is fine.
My dad was in the air force for years, was incredibly sympathetic to immigrants and openly called for more immigration. But was hesitant to say service should guarantee citizenship.
Notably he was also very critical of Heinlein. Though he did like the bits that weren’t heavy handed political philosophy.
He thought that a direct route from service to citizenship would create a militia class of immigrants. It would be very attractive to a certain group of people who’s interests may not align with those of the US.
It was a security threat, he thought. And it seems like this attitude is shared by the DoD.
I mean it makes sense, from a pragmatic point of view.
For an illustration of how this could wrong, we just need to look at the French Foreign Legion and how they attempted to assassinate De Gaule over Indochina.
Trump’s SCOTUS will take care of this, no problem.
It’s almost like the vow he made to protect the constitution just yesterday was completely empty and meaningless.
argues against the 14th Amendment
critics calling it unconstitutional
Uuuuh yeaaah, no shit…
I’ve actually thought the law to be very stupid and old.
with critics calling it unconstitutional.
You don’t need to be a critic to call it unconstitutional. It is, as it contradicts an Amendment.
This exactly. It is COMPLETELY unconstitutional in the very definition of the word.
No no no cmon, yesterday, the president made an oath to uphold and protect the constitution. You’re telling me he was lying to us?!
For the second time
If only there was a document that prevented that
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/
Oh wait, it’s gone!
Donald Trump is Nicolas Cage in a wig and orange makeup, confirmed.
Fuck, lots to unpack here.
Sooooo, that actually is his official portrait? I thought someone posted it as satire. At least he’s not hiding that he’s the villain.
“America we’re back” is his slogan? That and the pic looks after school special.
The loading screen icon is the White House – was it always? Because as a Canadian all it invokes in me is the memory of us burning it down.
Did the constitution page get remapped? Or is it gone, gone?
So I was just thinking they were being cheeky and posted a fake URL that would show an error from the Whitehouse website, but I Googled “whitehouse website constitution” and google has a link to their page on the constitution… It’s gone.
they know what they’re doing. it’s to generate noise to confuse search terms about executive order effects in such a way that’s easy for maga to deflect (“well they took it down by accident, you’re triggered”)
This is what comes up when I search “white house website constitution”
The link works for me, but is curiously still tagged as the Biden Whitehouse.https://www.archives.gov/ is like archive.org but for the US Government.
It would make sense that they archive government websites
I never ever ever want to hear anymore excuses from democrats about “oh, but we did kinda do the one thing. Governance is hard, and we just couldn’t get 100% of Congress to agree. The republicans bullied us until we came and we’re all out of gas :(”
I mean, this isn’t really governance. It’s Trump signing an executive order that will never come to pass without an constitutional amendment, which isn’t going to happen. Trump might have promised to be a dictator on day 1, but no matter how much he fancies himself a king, he will always have to work within the boundaries of the framework of government, no matter how ratfucked it might be. Expect this one to be struck down in court very quickly.
Doubt. Do we have a remind me bot here? Pretty sure the scotus will hold most of these up, regardless of whether they should.
With this SCOTUS, nothing is ever completely off the table, but I’d like to think that they wouldn’t make a sweeping decision like that which could potentially call into question the legitimacy of the citizenship status of hundreds of millions of Americans (including their own) just for the sake of appeasing Trump.
They literally gave the president criminal immunity to appease Trump.
