Summary
Trump announced plans to end birthright citizenship via executive action, despite its constitutional basis in the 14th Amendment.
He also outlined a mass deportation policy, starting with undocumented immigrants who committed crimes and potentially expanding to mixed-status families, who could face deportation as a unit.
Trump said he wants to avoid family separations but left the decision to families.
While doubling down on immigration restrictions, Trump expressed willingness to work with Democrats to create protections for Dreamers under DACA, citing their long-standing integration into U.S. society.
“Doesn’t the 14th Amendment pose a problem for that plan?”
“Not a problem, no one handles amendments like me. 14 amendments is nothing, when I…when I do the Christ stuff before food I do 15, 30, 100 amendments. And people say ‘Wow, you are so good with the amendments, no one does the amendments like you.’ So I got that all taken care of.”The Supreme Court in historically (and I can only imagine the current court will be the worst so far) has never been able to count to 14 much less interperate it.
He actually already opened an office to review and attempt to take away citizenship from people who already earned it, back in 2020.
Who could have possibly seen this coming?
Deport to where…
When Republicans say deport 5% of the population what they mean is put them in camps until they die because there’s no way they could process all that paperwork
Even if they could process all that paperwork, those countries have to want those people back. You can’t just land a bunch of C-130s full of people in Guatemala City and dump them onto the tarmac. That’s not how anything works.
So even if somehow they knew where every single person in those camps is “supposed” to go, many of them would stay there indefinitely anyway. Until, I guess, they come up with a Final Solution for them.
And if they were born in America then there is no other country for them to go to
Okay, we don’t need to go adding extra stupid stuff. At the base level you’re doing their normalization for them. At the high level we need an accurate idea of what’s coming so we can prepare.
Watching the actual interview it’s clear he makes some assertions. They don’t want to separate families so they will send the US citizens with the family if the family wants. What this generally means is when the parents are undocumented but a kid is a citizen. This interview does not support denaturalizing people, (but he did do that in his first term), or forcing American citizens in a mixed status family who are adults to leave.
On the 14th the interviewer wanted and got an answer from an 80 year old partially senile man. His first, natural answer to the 14th amendment question was he would go to the people. He only noncommittally said he would look at an EO when then interviewer kept asking him but what about an executive order. If he’s mentioned doing that before the proper way is to bring up what he said before and see if he still holds that position. Not repeating, “but what about an EO” 5 times until you get the funny and the headline writers can celebrate.
The open question is how will this highly suggestable man fare around the likes of Stephen Miller.
So is he going to stop renting his penthouses in Florida to Russians so they can have babies here to be US citizens? Or does his plan only affect brown people?
This is libelous. The Russian penthouses are in NYC.
Russians will be granted amnesty because of their willingness to accept our deportations into their labor camps.
Just the browns.
Anyone in the US who believes they have any sort of legal protection is just delusional. There 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.
We’re going back to the “political spoils” system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
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.
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:
- A bunch of conservative-related businesses know what a clusterfuck it will be for their bottom line; that will push the Supreme Court to pretend there’s no issue here
- The Supreme Court can only take so many cases at a time
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.
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”.
My 86-year old mother is house-bound but she is the daughter of two immigrants who came over in the 1910’s, so I guess she’s gonna be shipped off to another country. I have no idea if my brother and I, both in our 50’s would be subjected to deportation considering we haven’t lived with her in over 30 years.
Maybe the US shouldn’t have elected an out-and-out racist asshole.
Congrats, nearly everyone in the written history of america are immigrants. Anyone after the declaration ? Gone! Immigrants from first and second world war? Gone! Good old usa! ( /s incase its not obvious)
I’m the child of an immigrant and a native-born person. So does half of my citizenship get taken away?
Decide which half of you body gets to stay
The lower half. I might lose my penis, but I get to keep my brain.
Unless this is a vertical bisection of course. Then the left side because I’m left-handed.
Although I wouldn’t have my right brain hemisphere anymore… Now I’m confused.
Trump opted to deport his brain and he’s going to be a 2 time president. May want to keep the penis.
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.
DoJ: “My lord, is that… constitutional?”
SCOTUS: “I will make it constitutional”
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.
There’s no confusion over the subject, just an expectation that the current SCOTUS could play the “Constitution doesn’t apply if the mother had no legal standing to actually be in the US” argument. That technically that hasn’t been established, and that there’s an implicit expectation that people giving birth in the US are legally recognized to be in the US, and all bets are off if the mother isn’t legally allowed in the US but gives birth in the US anyway. To the extent they seek being explicit about legal standing, they may point to the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” words as stating an illegal presence means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the state.
Whether or not children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship was never rulled 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.
which is probably gonna be that unauthorized immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
From opening arguments podcast they said that was intended if say Mexico or Canada invaded, the soldiers bring their wives who give birth, then those kids are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and not to be granted citizenship.
Of course lawyers can twist anything and scotus is rigged, so expect that.
Fun fact (or rather, a not-so-fun fact)
Native Americans living in reservations used to be considered not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” so they weren’t given US citizenship, even thought their ancestors have been here before the first colonists. If that bullshit can happen, nothing is stopping this biased af supreme court to say that undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Also, conservative justices often cited this idea of “Original Intent”. So they could argue that the original intent of the people who wrote the admendment was give only legal immigrants and their children the birthright citizenship, not people who sneaked in.
Theres so many loopholes they can exploit. They are the final say on what the constitution means, after all.
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.
Ate you saying Malaria is a billionaire?
It’s the same family.
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.
Let’s see how much the Constitution matters in a month and a half. Everyone who responds to the upcoming Trump madness with “it’s unconstitutional” are in for a rude awakening.
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…
Start with musk or stfu
Or barron
Musk doesn’t have birthright citizenship. As much as we wish he’d just go away, I hope you’re not suggesting they should expand this program to strip naturalized citizens.
Will be funny if they have a falling out and Trump rage enforces this against him.
They will inevitably have a falling out because they are both nepo baby idiots who can’t maintain long term relationships aside from sycophants and bootlickers.
That would literally be the single funniest thing that has ever happened in the history of mankind.
Only thing naturalized about him is his bank account which is what has kept him off the icehouse list
He worked on a student visa after dropping school.
That’s illegal, so he shouldn’t have qualified for naturalization without correcting that and leaving the country before reapplying.
So you agree that he doesn’t have birthright status?
You’re barking up a tree that really doesn’t need it.
I feel like there should be a saying involving palm trees with this, as their bark is very different and they are actually closer to grasses than most trees.
Chop down a palm tree and count the rings to see how old it is, the answer is 0. They don’t make rings, much like a blade of grass. They are fn dinosaur grass basically. (They were around back then). It’s also part of how they can bend and not snap as easily during high winds.
You understand the bark here is about a dog baying that they’ve treed an animal you’re hunting like a raccoon, but the raccoon isn’t in that tree, right?
Why would a raccoon chase a dog up a left tree? 🌴
Haha yeah, I get what the saying is about
She gets it
He lied on his Visa papers and is literally an illegal immigrant.
first idea of his that i dont find completely stupid
You uh… okay with voiding parts of the Constitution with a vote in Congress? or Executive Order?
im not american, but if youre trying to justify a system where it is extremely difficult to change laws and rules that are outdated or no longer feasable, be my guest.
The entire reason they’re so hard to change is so they don’t get changed on a whim. If it’s in that document it’s because 3/4 of every elected representative in every state thought it was that important. Letting Congress change something like that with a simple majority or filibuster majority is ridiculous and means either party could completely re-write the basis of our laws at will just by changing that document. For example instead of trying to change and enforce every law about marriage and benefits they could simply pass a constitutional change to define marriage conservatively and let the courts go through striking down the now unconstitutional normal laws.
Making that document hard to change is one of the things America got right.
It’s only a core tenet of our country after all
as are guns. both are not necessarily beneficial
You have to have experience with a certain kind of person, in order to accept that they exist, in order to accept that weapons is the only way to deal with them, in order to get the second amendment.
It’s possible to think it through logically, but generally speaking people refuse to accept the existence of that kind of person, and refuse to let go of the idea that there may be some way to change the person’s intentions and choices without violence, so that neither party initiates violence.
The ultimate utility of weapons comes from that one kind of person, who just won’t pay heed to anything else. Until you’ve been forced to accept their existence in reality, the mind is just unwilling to entertain it.
what
TLDR: if you can’t conceive of a reason to need weapons it is because you have noy encountered a person for whom no other options exist to influencce their behavior.
that is some suggestive bs
Why shouldn’t someone born in a country get citizenship regardless of who their parents are?
Why is punishing a child for what their parents did not completely stupid?
That’s some apartheid-level shit.
why is this a punishment? do you realize that if you are born on a vacation of your parents, this prevents you from getting citizenship. is this logical to you?
do you realize that if you are born on a vacation of your parents, this prevents you from getting citizenship.
That is absolutely false.
I’m a bit conflicted in this, because Canada has similar issues with this but it’s more “birth tourism” where people from various other countries come here for a limited time - have a child who is entitled to citizenship and all the benefits - and then leave. That child spend decades never setting foot in the country, but still be eligible for a passport, voting rights, and many other such things despite having no significant ties to the country, and neither parent being a citizen
How is this an issue? How many people do you honestly go abroad explicitly to give birth there to gain the system?
Sounds like you fell for yet another outrage clickbait. If 100 people do this, whatever. I rather have this than someone being born in a country and lives there their entire life but has no right of nationality there because their parents weren’t there for 5 years prior to their birth or whatever the fuck the law says.
UK has no citizenship by birth type and it hurts way more people than could ever hope to abuse it.
It’s “game the system” just so you know.
I looked it up there were 3,575 non-citizen births in Canada in 2023.
I couldn’t find any numbers on how many were deliberate
So less than 1% of natural born Canadian citizens in 2023 were to non-citizen parents? Really send like it’s not that big of a deal at all
If someone uproots their life to go and live in a different country and contribute paying more taxes than average family with zero safety nets? They earned it.
People love to act like immigrants have it somehow easier… While they’re heavily discriminated at every step, pay extra for just about everything and come with less money moving in, no family house to fall back onto etc. The entitlement I’ve seen in my life disgusts me.
That’s also not counting the # of people that try and fail.
Border services can turn back people who are pregnant and close to their end-date
Ah yes, the “outrage clickbait” that is a known issue and has been the subject of numerous studies by government and reputable institutions both pre and post pandemic.
Guess we should send the border services agency a memo that it’s probably only a hundred people and they should remove it from the things they literally screen for, because some Internet genius is sure it’s nothing to worry about…
It’s never going to stop surprising me when a politician says he’s going to do something, I tell people, and then he does it but so many people were still caught completely off guard. I imagine this is how many in the UK feel about Brexit.
It’s unreal. Days after the election, people I work with were saying that Project 2025 was just propaganda and that he’s not actually going to do all the stuff he said he would do.
That’s my mother to a T. She defends all the batshit stuff he spews by saying it’s just a negotiating tactic to get to some “reasonable” compromise. Which may well be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that his opening bid is always something batshit insane and/or cruel, and that he would happily go through with it, if he were allowed to.
For real Brexit was a stunning result. I just remember this post results interview with same randoms about it and one of the yes voters was like “yea I just through it was never going to happen and voted yes as a laugh.”
I’m surprised that you’re surprised that they’re surprised.
I didn’t expect anyone to take it this far
Surprising, isn’t it?
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.
This piece of shit is just trying to get rid of his wife and unattractive children.
