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.
“It’s ridiculous, we’re the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know, and it’s just absolutely ridiculous. We think we have really good grounds. People have wanted to do this for decades.”
Canada has birthright citizenship.
Trump is ignorant and Trump is stupid.
Congratulations, America, you elected a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, serial sexual assaulter and harasser, serial adulterer, serial fraudster, pathological liar, lifelong con man, and wannabe dictator but more importantly you elected a fucking idiot.
We’re number 1! U.S.A!!
Twice
Twice
Lower Canada
Apparently we can unilaterally rename you because we border you.
Don’t attach our name to that
Lower Canada will only ever refer to Quebec
That and Trump made at least three different attempts (that we know of) to remain in office last time. Fake electors, find those Georgia votes, and an actual attack on the Capitol. The GOP and her voters then spent four years squawking about election security and fraud. Their jackass right wing media spent time revamping white replacement theory… so they have to on some level understand democracy and voting.
So what do the big on the rule of law real Americans do? They vote for the only candidate that tried to disenfranchise a whole shit ton of American voters. It is absolutely wild that so many domesticated standard Americans failed this very very basic test.
I’ve actually thought the law to be very stupid and old.
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.
Republicans opposing elements of the 14th amendment after decades of claiming to love the constitution. Not surprising.
But yeah, we have birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment for a reason. Even if we were the only country to have it, where it’s found would explain why.
Instead let’s fix the other things we’re the only country with like our antiquated system of measurement or our health care system
It’s almost like the vow he made to protect the constitution just yesterday was completely empty and meaningless.
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
I don’t even understand what this will mean. Why does the donvict care so much about this?
Would this mean that while Elon was here illegally and if he had kids with someone with the same status, his kids would not be citizens?
Why does the donvict care so much about this?
Conservatives hate foreigners, and love watching them get kicked in the face. This is porn for his base.
Who they consider foreign is also highly subjective. If a German tourist who barely speaks English and has the thickest accent you’ve heard is accidentally mistaken for an immigrant, he will be seen as more American than that Hispanic guy whose family were here before the 20th century.
Hurt brown ppl. Member when they ended public pool segregation? Instead of letting their kids swim with black kids the white ppl closed the pools instead.
deleted by creator
No. Elon’s rich.
How does this work? Aren’t most people citizens because of birthright citizenship?
My ancestors certainly didn’t do the proper paperwork before landing here.
You can be a natural born citizen either by being here when born or by being born to a US citizen. The order challenges the former.
I saw people accurately predict that they would hang such an order on the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” portion. The argument was predicted to be that a mother on US soil unlawfully is excluded by that clause (though they are clearly subject to the jurisdiction despite being unlawful, this was the guess).
They are trying to push it even further by claiming people here legally also don’t get the right, and there’s not even a hint of rationalization to claim that somehow people legally here are not “subject to the jurisdiction”.
Yes if you aren’t Native American, your family probably gained citizenship through birthright.
The 14th amendment says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”
The court has read that as: “All persons born” OR " naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Trump wants it to read: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "
His take: Anchor babies are not “Subject to the jurisdiction” and thus are not citizens.
That doesn’t clear too much for me. Are you saying that everybody needs to go through the citizenship process and take the citizenship test? I’m not sure what the part about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means exactly.
Neither does Trump
All we have to do is ask what happens to a “migrant” baby left at a fire house.
Straight to the state care system?
Oh wow.
Right now just being born on US soil automatically makes you a US citizen, regardless of if your parents are or not. It works that way in a lot of countries. I knew a guy in school who’s parents are both British, his mother started giving birth to him on a plane so they did an emergency landing in Cyprus. Due to being born there he has both British and Cypriot citizenship.
This change would stop that happening in the US. Your parents would have to be citizens for you to become one as soon as you’re born.
We aren’t fsr from Starship Troopers’ '“Service guarantees citizenship.”
https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-military-service
We’re really not.
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?
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.
The laws don’t have to make sense as long as they’re in power.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Constitutional lawyers are going to be making a fortune over the next 4 years. Fuck you America. Just fuck y’all.
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!
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”)
Donald Trump is Nicolas Cage in a wig and orange makeup, confirmed.
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
Stay tuned for a new constitutional crisis every day!
Just one per day? I’m expecting at least two.
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.
Can’t wait for the Right to recognize that if they normalize nullifying constitutional amendments with executive orders, the next Democrat president can just use that to nullify the 2nd Amendment that they’re so terribly fond of.
Of course that assumes there will be another election some day.
that assumes that the Dems will actually do literally anything at all.
Doesn’t work because the legal body is republican controlled. Only republican choices are above the law.
Democrat president can just use that to nullify the 2nd Amendment
Can, but won’t, because that would be “going low” and “we aren’t like them”
You know, like cowardly dipshits
deleted by creator
Yeah, if they let him start dictating constitutional amendments by executive order there definitely won’t be a next election.
deleted by creator
The next election may come after a civil war,.but there will be a next election.
Assuming the US remains united.
I don’t think that’s a problem. Even if they didn’t plan to begin their dictatorship now, Biden had immunity and didn’t do a goddamn thing with it. Democrats don’t do anything.
POTUS immunity wasn’t a blanket grant of absolute power. It was just the same BS immunity that cops get for what they do as cops.
Dunno if you noticed, but cops pretty much have a blanket grant of absolute power…
Close to it, maybe, but police can’t do a whole bunch of things. Like hold you forever without trial, or arbitrarily rape people with no consequences. Or shoot judges whose rulings they don’t like
What they get away with is outrageous, but it’s not quite "absolute power "
Like hold you forever without trial
lol, k. If you live within 100 miles of an international port of entry, your rights are suspended as soon as anyone says “National security”.
or arbitrarily rape people with no consequences
Really?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/sarah-everard-cops-sexually-assault-people/
And how infrequently rape is even charged, yes, they can, and do.
Or shoot judges whose rulings they don’t like
Sure they can.
Cops are the only ones with guns in courthouses!
And if ordered to do so, by the president, nothing to be done.
What they get away with is outrageous, but it’s not quite "absolute power "
For practical purposes, it is. Their only constraint is to not attack the ruling class.
Are you really trying to round up from “suck” to “tyranny”?
next Democrat president
LOL. Fascism is here. There will never be another Democrat president.
Fascism is here in part because Democrat presidents aren’t actually on a different team.
I get the impression is that in your mind there are only two teams: people who agree with you 100% and everyone else.
Trying to argue “both sides” on an article about a Republican trying to overturn the Constitution with an executive order has got to be embarrassing.
You mean like an article on the Dems in congress overturning the US Constitution via votes?
That’s not what this is though.
No, but the PATRIOT Act was…
Passed with more Republican votes than Democrat votes in both houses of Congress and a Republican president.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
Ah the both parties are the same guy. Always here, never correct, never helpful.
deleted by creator
the next Democrat president
lol, cute of you to think there will be a “next election”.
Of course that assumes there will be another election some day.
Yeah I addressed that.
Deport Baron
Deport Elon
