This title isn’t true. The court has not “given the OK”
The supreme court did give the ok saying that it comes down to states and individuals to stop it.
That isn’t true. That is what sensationalist headlines said the verdict as. The verdict had nothing to do with birthright citizenship.
We desperately need media literacy training as a species.
It is true. It’s not a ruling on birthright citizenship but it does stop the injunction against it.
Edit to explain because I doubt you grasp: Without the injunction he’s free to act on a birthright citizenship ban unless sued by individuals or states on the behalf of said individuals. So over 20 states have no limit to this executive order pausing the deportation of people born in the US because they haven’t sued the federal government for breaking the 14th amendment.
If anything this is far worse than just birthright citizenship because Trump can write executive orders far faster than lawsuits can be brought against the administration and lower federal courts can’t file injunctions against the administration, states or individuals have to sue.
Again: The supreme court did give the ok, saying that it comes down to states and individuals to stop it because it removed the lower courts’ ability to file injunctions.
Because you doubt I’ll grasp… Why?
You’re the one who ate up the sensationalistic news headlines and regurgitated them like a good little boy?
I’m not going to read the content of your response because you open with inflammatory bullshit. Grow up.
Tagged as “fucking douche.”
Ohh your feelings hurt because everyone downvoted you. Cool, take it out on me. That’s the Hallmark of someone to take seriously in conversation.
Because you doubt I’ll grasp… Why?
I’m not going to read
Heh
Start media literacy training by never citing YouTube videos as sources. It’s far better to learn to read.
The word for learning to read books is literacy.
I was talking specifically about learning to read things that are not books.
This is just cope. They did give the OK. They didn’t technically say he could revoke birthright citizenship, but they removed the ability for people to effectively challenge the revocation of their citizenship. If you can’t actually exercise your rights, then your rights don’t exist.
But keep huffing the copium.
Please explain how they removed the ability to challenge it.
Also, they are still going to make a decision. Just haven’t done it yet.
Please explain your current understanding of the ruling in full before you ask others for lengthy explanations.
I asked you first. So annoying.
Here ya go: The ruling is against universal injunctions. Any existing injunctions stay and any future plaintiffs can block the order as well. It just can’t be stopped across the country from any existing or future rulings. Unless of course the Supreme Court ends up saying it’s unconstitutional.
Your turn.
And you don’t see the blindingly obvious problems with that, the issues that have been repeatedly pointed out in dozens of articles on the subject? I’m sorry, but you just aren’t operating in good faith. You’re either willfully ignoring those issues, or you are demanding others do your homework for you.
So you don’t have an answer to my question? Sounds like you’re the one operating blindly. Just saying things.
No, I just don’t suffer fools.
Right, they only said “nobody can stop you from doing illegal things.”
Completely different.
It was about whether or not a federal court can issue a nationwide injunction.
The verdict has much more to do with active cases of deportees suing the US than it does to do with birthright citizenship.
This is technically true, but it’s also wrong.
Yes, they didn’t technically rule on birthright citizenship, but it doesn’t matter. Without national injunctions, your right to birthright citizenship doesn’t actually exist as a practical matter.
By the time you can file your individual case challenging the revocation of your citizenship, you’ll already be in an ICE concentration camp. And you don’t have a right to an attorney during immigration proceedings.
Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn’t actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.
Basically what happened: Trump’s birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it’s probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he’d probably lose), Trump’s team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges’ power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.
So now Trump’s celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.
It’s more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven’t gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.
He won because he can delay actually following the law until he’s dead because it will be impractical to stop him
My prior understanding of the issue at hand is that the probable downside for limiting the nationwide application of some federal judge rulings is that the federal agencies have the resources to select a jurisdiction to enact rules that local judges have determined to be unconstitutional to one where local judges have not. Ex. if Feds can’t violate someone’s civil rights in New York, just move that someone to Florida where the Federal Agency can violate their civil rights.
Certainly there are scenarios in which federal judges being able to issue nationwide rulings is detrimental to left leaning causes as well (mifepristone bans), however without the supreme court first taking up the case of the constitutionality of birthright citizenship before making this current ruling on application of nationwide rulings, they’re just being a bunch of shit fuck cowards.
100% on both counts.
The forum shopping issue you’re describing is exactly the problem. Trump’s team can now basically pick and choose where to implement policies that have been ruled unconstitutional elsewhere. It creates this patchwork where your constitutional rights depend on geography, which is obviously fucked.
And you’re spot on about the cowardice. The Supreme Court absolutely should have ruled on the constitutional question first. That’s the actual substantive issue everyone cares about. Instead they took the cop out that gives Trump more power without having to make the hard call on whether his order is constitutional.
Honestly it looks like classic Roberts Court behaviour: make big changes to how government works while pretending you’re just doing technical legal housekeeping. They know damn well that ruling on birthright citizenship would be messy and politically explosive, so they found a way to help Trump without having to own the constitutional implications.
Your point about this cutting both ways (like with mifepristone) is important too, but the timing here makes it pretty clear what they’re really doing.
He did win though, because by telling federal judges that their rulings against executive orders cannot be… Federal, nationwide, the supreme court took away about 99% of the (already mediocre) checks and balances against Trump’s power (and any presidents power). To pass it off as just some procedural stuff misses how impactful this is, the only court powers that can stop his kings laws by edict (‘executive orders’) now are: case by case state-based rulings for federal judges, and the supreme court itself for nationwide rulings.
This is largely what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent: this is a huge expansion of presidential powers by the SC removing restrictions from the president, over an issue that is abundantly clearly illegal (denying birthright citizenship), and it leaves the door wide open to further illegal orders.
Her dissent is worth a read, it begins on page 54: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Fair point.
I was definitely too focused on the narrow “did they rule on birthright citizenship” question and missed the bigger picture. You’re right that this is way more than just procedural, it’s a massive shift in executive power.
The fact that federal judges can now only issue piecemeal, state-by-state rulings essentially breaks their ability to actually check presidential overreach in any meaningful way.
I think I got too caught up in fact checking the specific headline and missed how big Trump’s win actually was here, just not in the way the headlines suggested. Thanks for the correction.
It’s still a right embedded in the constitution. The supreme court didn’t say he could do it…but the orange Cheetos in chief probably thinks they did because his mother gave birth to him at the top of a ladder
The ability to shop around for a favorable jusrisdiction is quite potent when rearranging people is supremely easy. Ship the kids to Texas then start deporting them.
They might be able to avoid a real supreme Court case by backing off in local jurisdictions causing the cases to no longer have standing and just keep it up in jurisdictions that are friendly to the administration.
Human rights are officially a thing of the past. None of us qualify for citizenship if he removes that definition.
Birthright citizenship is not a human right. It’s pretty much only a thing in North and South America.
You can say a lot of things. But proclaiming it as a loss of human rights is not it.
It is basically the only form of citizenship in the USA, and since only citizens rights are respected by laws, meaning nobody has any guaranteed rights at all.
It allows them to denounce citizenship of whoever they deem an enemy of the state. Hence then allowing to revoke the right of any and creating a fear state, behave or behead.
Along with setting precedent that an acting head can unilaterally change the foundations. Hence creating no quantifiable term for rights, as they then get to choose who benefits from them.
If the nation that held your birth and upbringing doesn’t want you, what is your right anywhere else?
You’re not allowed to make a person stateless.
Says who? The UN? A treaty the US didn’t sign?
The constitution says people born here are citizens and they’ve decided to pretend it doesn’t. Why would an organization they want to withdraw from or a treaty they don’t recognize get more weight?
And what’s the stateless person going to do if they’re wronged? Sue?
Constitutions can be altered, amended. Which seems to be what Trump wants to do.
I’m just telling you that the majority of countries does not have birthright citizenship. It’s something you inherit from your parents. Provided they file for it if you’re born outside of a hospital or abroad.
And no. Birthright citizenship is not a human right.
And yes, someone becoming stateless against their will, would have to sue.
I’m not arguing for or against it. Not my bone to pick.
The president doesn’t get to change the constitution, or amend it. Congress doesn’t even have that power, the most they can do is present it to the states.
What you’re doing is arguing that a non-binding statement or a treaty that the US isn’t a party to is somehow a better source for morality and defining what constitutes a human right than decency or thinking for yourself.
Don’t outsource your conscience to dead guys from the 40s.If someone was born here, they can be one of us. Both constitutionally and morally. The UN and Trump have fuck all to do with morality. Kicking someone out of their home because of where their parents are from is wrong.
As for the lawsuit… Where would they sue? On what possible grounds do you think that would even get a hearing? Who do you think would enforce the ruling?
The US has signed no treaty agreeing to not make people stateless.
What possible standing would anyone have to argue in court that a country denied them citizenship, particularly if, as you say, no one has a right to citizenship in any particular country? Or is jus soli citizenship a right but only if you don’t have any other option?Someone definitely have the power to amend the Constitution, seeing as you have several amendments. No?
Again. What you want Human Rights to be. Doesn’t change what they actually are.
You don’t think that everyone will have different opinions of what should and shouldn’t be included? So how would you ever be able to say what they are?
Why do you seem to think that morality would be limited to Human Rights? Things can not be a right, and still immoral. Morality is also a very subjective thing.
What isn’t subjective. Is the Human Rights as determined by the UN.
I’m not going to argue about who and who doesn’t get to be a US citizen. But changing the way nationality is given, is factually not a Human Rights issue.
You can say it’s a constitutional issue. But it sure isn’t a Human Rights one.
As to the last part. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not going to speculate in the legal defense. You asked what they would do, sue? And the answer is yes.
What are you talking about? It would allow them to revoke the citizenship of people born in the US to 2 non-citizens. That’s not a significant portion of the population.
It pretty much is a loss of human rights indirectly, though. Losing birthright citizenship essentially means going through whatever processes he wants to become a citizen and gain the benefits of citizenship (voting, social programs, etc.). It also means he can use it as an excuse to deport whoever, which has usually ended up involved stripped those deported of their rights.
Human rights are those required for human dignity and flourishing not those which are universally possessed in a world full of distress and toil.
Freedom of speech is one such commonly understood but often denied. For instance if the content of your speech can see someone removed from the land of their birth to one where they are stateless and homeless what other rights do they possess?
I don’t think birthright citizenship qualifies as a “human right” - most countries that (officially) care more about “human rights” than USA does doesn’t have that. Whether it should be removed or not is not for me to say, however. It’s a switch away from what it has genuinely mesnt to be an American.
Not having birthright citizenship doesn’t (necesarilly) mean the newborn wouldn’t have any citizenship at all
There are many birthright citizens of all ages not just infants. They would instantly become homeless and destitute in a country where they may not speak the language and have no proof of citizenship even if they may eventually have some due to them eventually.
Furthermore this is a vehicle to deny them other human rights by selectively removing people who are entitled by our constitution to citizenship for speaking against the government.
Right of redress assembly speech to be secure in their person , and to be subject to the law not a ruler are all important rights herein denied.
You are still not allowed to make someone stateless. That has not changed.
You seem to be confused as to what human rights actually are, rather than what you want them to be. I suggest you look at the wiki page.
Why would I define human rights by virtue of what a wiki says today?
Ok… but you are aware that the UN have set actual Human Rights?
Why on earth do you think not being listed in a particular document makes something not a human right
Because it’s factually not a Human Right?
Your opinion of what you want them to be. Doesn’t make it so.
You have the right to a nationality. (Article 15) How you get one is up to each country. Most grant you one from either of your parents. Not the location you were born.
How would this result in anyone being stateless? You do realize people still inherit the citizenship of their parents right?
I’m not saying it is. And yes. I am aware of that. I’ve been mentioning it plenty of times in this post already.
The problem is that birth right citizenship is in the constitution. So if Trump can get rid of that, he can get ignore the Bill of Rights as well.
EDIT: Also basically every country has birthright citizenship usually be having a citizen as a parent. What is different in the Americas is jus soli, so being born in the country making you a citizen.
Basically every country in earth does not use birth right citizenship. It’s basically only a feature of new world colony countries.
The majority of the world does not use it. The americas may have a lot of landmass they do not have the majority of people.
It’s mostly based on parentage or blood. You arnt ever born with out citizenship some country always lays claim to ownership of your person. But it’s not normally based on the borders ownership, but the person’s giving birth ownership.
That’s exactly the difference that Trump is harping on
No. Basically every country does NOT have birthright citizenship. If I was born in Spain, that would not make me a Spanish citizen. Since neither of my parents are Spanish citizens.
I would get citizenship from my parents. Not from the location I was born.
Edit: ok I see now what you mean with “birthright citizenship”. But that’s not the term used elsewhere. Yes. Everyone born has the right to a citizenship. But since we cannot be made stateless… you will never end up born without it.
You’re arguing that people don’t have the right to live where they were born and have lived their entire lives.
If that’s not a human right, than basically nothing is.Also, “only” north and south america? That’s not a trivial portion of the world that you can just “only” away.
I’m not arguing anything. I’m informing you of what the reality is.
33 countries have it. All but two are in Americas.
The rest have citizenship inherited from your parents. Meaning. Even if I was born in Portugal. It wouldn’t make me a Portugeese citizen. I would still be a Swedish citizen. Since my parents are.
“I’m not arguing anything” they say, arguing that it’s not a human right.
Get the fuck out of here with your double think.
Portugal and Sweden not respecting a human right doesn’t make it not a human right. Given how gleefully so much of Europe seems to be to deny people who have lived in the country for generations citizenship, to restrict their freedom or religion, or to just watch them fucking drown, I’m not super keen for the US to use Europe as a role model for human rights regarding citizenship.Again, if taking someone from the only home they’ve ever known to live someplace they’ve never been, don’t speak the language, and have no citizenship isn’t a human rights violation, then nothing that matters is.
I don’t give a shit if Sweden says it’s fine.You’re either willfully being ignorant. Or just lack fundamental understanding of what Human Rights are. It’s something set by the UN.
Birthright Citizenship is not included. Period. It is not a Human Right to be a citizen in the country you’re born.
You can have the opinion that it should be. But it is in fact not.
Most countries. As in, all of them except 33. Have it so you get citizenship from either or both of your parents.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
It is not the UN’s domain to determine human rights. It’s its job to recognize and (ideally) to promote and protect them. And it’s not wonderfully effective at that part of its job.
I agree that UN is not wonderfully effective at enforcing Human Rights. That is fair and valid criticism. I don’t think they’re very good at enforcing anything to be honest.
You may have the opinion that it shouldn’t be in the UN’s domain to determine Human Rights. But matter of fact is. The Declaration of Human Rights is something the UN made. They did determine them. It has already happened. I strongly advise everyone to go and read them. You will probably find that everything you wish was there, is actually in there. There are a total of 30 articles. So it’s not a particularly long read.
I think it’s telling that you only consider something a human right if there’s a law protecting it.
Do you think there were no human rights before 1948?The universal declaration on human rights is the set of rights that a good number of nations could agree on. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not an exhaustive or definitive list.
Before you start accusing people of ignorance or being intentionally obtuse, you might consider that you’re actually full of shit on the concept of morality.
I think it’s telling that you only consider something a human right if there’s a law protecting it.
Yeah. The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution plainly says that there are more rights than are enumerated.
There was no consensus on what should be global human rights before 1948 that is correct.
Before that, the only rights you had, were the ones afforded to you by your lord, king, queen, emperor, president, prime minister, etc. For a very long time, all over the world. A lot of people had, literally. No rights at all. They were used, sold, worked, as slaves.
So it’s a wonderful thing that a bunch of countries came together and tried their best to determine some basic Human Rights that everyone should adhere to. Being afforded citizenship of the country you’re currently inside at the time of birth. Is not one of them.
If you ever bothered to actually look into them. You might find article 15 of interest.
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality
You have the Human Right to belong to a nation. But it does not stipulate which nation. Nor how you acquire the nationality. Some countries have it as the place where you were physically born. Others have it as an extension of your parents nationality.
I could explain this further if you so wish. But I doubt you’d care for it. In any case. What you personally think should and shouldn’t be a human right, won’t change the status of the actual Human Rights. Just like what you personally think should and shouldn’t be legal in your country, won’t change the status of the laws currently put in place.
Most of the world is blood right citizenship, you inherit it from your parents. Which is actually helpful if abroad on a trip and you get born you automatically get citizenship of where your parents normally would reside as a citizen, The person you were commenting on is correct, human rights has nothing to do with sovereign nations laws on who becomes a citizen. Its not a right as a human to take on the citizenship based on the continent and boundaries you live in because countries are a construct. Think back to all the border changes in places like prewar Germany. Your border could change, it doesn’t change what country “you belong to”. American having Birthright sort of made sense because it was the " new world " at the time.
By no means do I support what USA admin is doing, they are absolute assholes. But not liking it doesn’t make it a human rights violation
The freedom to not be kicked out of your home and sent to a foreign land because of who your parents happened to be is as much a right or construct as the right to speech, belief, or any other codified right.
Hence why if that’s not a right, then there are really none of significance.Rights are not bestowed by governments, international declarations, or treaties.
Arguing that a sovereign nations laws contradicting something makes it not a human right is a powerfully slippery slope.
The rights of people matter more than those of nations.
Rights are bestowed by governments though. We have moved passed roaming the land and setting up a homestead wherever you like, we now have governments that scribe boundaries and zone land, it is no longer “freedom”. If you are worried about citizenship and your parents move it is on them to pursue PR and then citizenship, then the same for their children.
It is a human right, just not one that is universally respected.
Moron is literally BEGGING
From what I understand, its not the supreme court ok’d his move rather they stopped other lower federal courts from creating injunctions that stop the entire process, and they now limited them to stopping only those who bring forth lawsuits and who are affected by whatever it is.
Which is incredibly bad
this is insane
deleted by creator
But don’t you see? By losing, we sent a message to the Democratic Party leadership and now they’re totally moving left!
all those cuomo endorsements really show they’re willing to listen
thier response is to moving right
Time for guillotines
The supreme court did not give the OK. They said that you have to sue individually or as a class action and kicked it back down to the lower court. And several orgs are currently petitioning for class action status.
Edit: they also said courts can’t issue nationwide injunctions, they have to be narrower.
When talking about birthright citizenship, how do you get narrower than nationwide injunctions?
What the Republicans in the Supreme Court seem to be arguing is that the president can ignore the law as long as the people affected can’t afford a lawsuit.
Iirc, the way it’ll work out is if you’re born in one of the 22 blue states with an order, you get to be a citizen. If you’re born in a red state, though, you’re fucked. It’s a very strange issue to patchwork, though, even stranger than abortion.
The Supreme Court hasn’t actually decided if it’s illegal or not. This is just about injunctions to stop Trumps EO.
That being said, it’s also a federal issue so you couldn’t get a patchwork like abortion.
Unless I’m missing something?
The news was talking about the patchwork, and yeah, you’d think it’s a federal issue but the injunctions can only apply where the lawsuits were, hence the 22 states that sued. At least for now.
At least that’s my understanding. It likely can’t stay in this limbo for long, anyway. Will this court be corrupt enough to say it’s constitutional when it’s clearly not? I really hope not.
The Supreme Court onky stated the injunctions must be “narrower”, but didn’t provide specifications as to what that means (to my understanding/recollection). They could still say a statewide injunction is too broad.
But yeah, I agree, I don’t know how you have a patchwork of injunctions on birthright citizenship. It just sounds do stupid. Either it is or isn’t legal, and you probably should figure it out before allowing it to affect anyone.
But the Republicans on the Supreme Court clearly don’t care about the law anymore.
As much as I dislike the decision, they did not give the “ok”
The ruling was about how the lower courts handle injunctions. The court cases are playing out still.
I still hate the decision.
They effectively did. They are Supreme Court justices, not idiots.
It doesn’t sound like those two things are mutually exclusive.
As much as we would like to, associating this with stupidity diminishes the actual malicious intent of these decisions.
Fair enough. This decision was definitely evil.
Look at roe vs wade. The Supreme Court said it’s up to the states which effectively killed abortion . The end result is going to be basically the same thing here
Read the dissents, they absolutely fucking did.
Effectively, anyone who does not have a lawyer who files a specific suit in a very short period of time can be deported at will. Saying it does not end the 14th Amendment is an exercise in English language mechanics, not in how it ends up affecting the world.
If you are high school student who is shipped off to a foreign prison, how likely do you think it is somebody will fight to bring you back?
This
Bunch of pansies. All they had to do is say No
And would have been the end of it. But they are scared of him for w/e reason. Trump can’t even remember Barrett.
So literally what happened here is Trump said, “I want to violate the Constitution” and the Supreme Court said, " Okay — go ahead."
And that’s it for the rule of law in the US.
All that’s left now is to tally the mass murders along the way to the inevitable collapse of the US, and to hope that our descendents can build something better out of the rubble.
The US collapsing is going to absolutely affect the rest of the world. This is very VERY bad.
That’s not literally what happened at all. Trump said, “I want to violate the constitution and issued an order”. Then states cities and organizations sued across three cases and courts issued universal injunctions. Trump said “wah! Help me puppet kourt!” Then the Supreme Court was like, “be still mein führer. We will not allow these injunctions to apply to the entire nation. Only to those who have sued.”
They gave him second base. Let’s see if they go all the way for Don Don.
I’m not a USer so correct me if wrong here, but is the implication then that something can be considered constitutional in one state but not in another? How does that work?
No. The core issue has not been decided. When courts in one state rule differently from courts in another, it goes up to federal court. When federal courts in different circuits rule differently, it goes up to SCOTUS. This issue isn’t at that point just yet.
It doesn’t. The ruling makes little sense and is just showing that playing the game with absolutely no ethics works very well.
I don’t see anything wrong with this. That’s how you end up with an Israel.
At what point does everyone say “if he’s not following the law, then neither should we”?
I break laws all the time now. They have no meaning. It’s like the wild west now
That point was sometime around the first term but the “wE aRe NOt thERe Yet” crowd keeps moving the goal post
As long as it doesn’t immediately result in you dead or in jail.
At the very least, I would like to see every Democratic lawmaker calling for the open violation of Supreme Court rulings. They are a fundamentally illegitimate institutions. Their opinions should be given less respect than the opinions of a shit-covered hobo holding an “the end is near” sign by the side of the road.
At what point are you willing to sacrifice your life for your cause?
Guilty. I’ve stolen 2 elections already and dogwhistled so much
Can you please just give them back? We’ve been looking for them literally everywhere
Also, those whistles give me a headache
deleted by creator
I came to that conclusion when he won the election despite his numerous crimes.
I’m ready if you are
Wait … Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?
It’s either where you’re born or where you live. Which is it?
Wtf even is citizenship then?
“I’m from Ireland” is synonymous with “I’m Irish”… Right?
So if you’re born in America, wouldn’t you… Be American?
If he takes that away, you aren’t just magically from nowhere, you’re still American.
This is stupid and makes no sense, it’s all just classism and racism. I hate everything.
You operate under the assumption that this is a public service. That would make no sense.
But if the assumption is them accumulating more power, then it makes perfect sense.
To be honest I get more mad at people being surprised by their actions. At this point it is so obvious what is happening and why. How can anyone be surprised by any of this?
“Why does this rabbit dog bites? How does this make for a better world?”
It is a rabbit dog, how could you ever expect something positive to begin with? Put it down already. You don’t argue with crazy.
rabbit dog
Its the same as the election between Obama and McCain, in ways a lot of people dont realize.
Obama, by virtue of having a non-traditional name and not being white, was hounded by birthers despite being born an American citizen clear as day with absolutely no question about it.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone the year before people born in the canal zone were granted citizenship at birth. Arguably he was not a citizen at birth under the definitional requirements of the constitution to be president. He was naturalized as a citizen.
Palin is part native, and was pretty heavily involved with Alaska Native movements that rejected US sovereignty and thereby rejected claims to citizenship. But no one talked about that either because shes also largely seen as just being a white American.
And yet Obama, who was American thru and thru from birth without question, never was involved with Hawaiian sovereignty movements, is the one whos citizenship was questioned.
“White makes right” is the rule of law to these people
Sounds about white.
Ted Cruz ran in the Republican presidential primary despite being an Albertan
Most people are citizens of where they also live and give birth so this distinction doesn’t come up in most cases. But for children born to immigrants or travelers it does.
Citizenship can either be assigned by where you were born, or who you were born to.
Birthright citizenship, as we use the term in the US, is mostly a new world invention. In nearly all countries in the americas, any children born here are citizens without exception. No matter the parents, no matter the circumstances.
In the old world, most countries require a parent to be a citizen in order for the child to also be a citizen.
Generally if an american couple gives birth in Europe, the child will just be american, despite where they were born. If a European couple gives birth in any of the americas, their child will be a citizen of the americas, despite anything else
Furthermore aren’t, at least some of, his kids from ? The youngest psychopath is definitely of imported genetics, does that mean the next oppositional president (ha, like Fatboy is ever going to let go of all that power now he’s king of the us) could kick all tRUMPs offspring out?
Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?
Only in the new world continents. In Africa, Europe, and Asia it normally means what country your parents and grandparents are from, unless someone in the chain naturalises to a different country.
Yup, and when you don’t have any citizenship, you’re stateless. It causes a lot of issues internationally, because a stateless person can’t have a passport, can’t immigrate, can’t hold a legal job because they can’t get a work visa without a passport, etc… Notably, the US is one of the few countries that refused to sign on with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Basically, the convention would prevent a country from revoking someone’s citizenship if they don’t have a valid claim elsewhere. And the US refused to sign.
You’ve just given it ten times more thought than the Trump team has.
The thing about ending birthright citizenship is that it would just create a stateless individual. Where would they even deport children of undocumented immigrants to? Are they going to make an El Salvadorian gulag for them too?
The former SCOTUS ruling on the 14th amendment was really clear - if you are born here, you are a citizen regardless of your parent’s legal immigration status. I don’t understand why the SCOTUS is even bothering to hear this case when even a constitutional literalist would have difficulty trying to weasel-word their way into a ruling that supports the Republican position on this one.
I can thing of few things more cruel than a state that looks at a literal child who was born here, lived here all their lives, speaks the language, attends school, has friends and family and a support structure and would otherwise be indistinguishable from any other American child born to American-born parents, and deport them to a country they’ve never set foot in for no real discernible reason other than they are anti-immigrant racists.
So when someone has tried to rationalize ending birthright citizenship, they fixate in the “and subject to the jusrisdiction”.
So they argue that a child born to parents who are citizens elsewhere are subject to the jurisdiction of the parents country of origin. To make this leap they say that language matching the intent should have been “and exclusively subject to the jurisdiction”. Or else they might claim it can only apply to parents legally in the country, but that didn’t let them block visa holders like they would want.
So technically it shouldn’t still be able to make stateless individuals even with their rationalization, but that is of no comfort in any practical terms.
First ones to be deported should be melania and baron
Jr, Ivanka, and Eric would also be removed. Tiffany is the only “true” American.
Donald J, “Who?”
