Summary

Donald Trump has pledged to end birthright citizenship through an executive order if re-elected, targeting the 14th Amendment’s provision that grants citizenship to all born in the U.S.

Critics argue this policy would defy the Constitution, specifically its post-Civil War intent to ensure citizenship for former slaves.

Legal experts widely agree that the Amendment’s language includes children born to undocumented parents, but Trump’s proposal could lead to an immediate legal battle.

The policy would require federal agencies to verify parents’ immigration status, complicating access to Social Security numbers and passports for U.S.-born children.

  • kinsnik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    115
    ·
    9 months ago

    wow, how lucky we are that the ultimate deciders on litigation are not a bunch of partisans hacks, right?

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      9 months ago

      When they say it’s about race, it’s about class. When they say it is about class, it’s about gender. And when they say it’s out gender, it’s about race.

      Or at least that’s how it feels sometimes.

      • activ8r@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        Other races, lower classes and LGBT.

        Republican’s only need their voters to be two things:

        1. Hates one of the above.
        2. Doesn’t give a shit about the other two.

        So they are incentivised to scatter shot and hurt as many people as possible to get the maximum number of votes… America is fucked.

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah but they bought their citizenship, they didn’t have it given to them by some stupid thing like the Constitution. Plus, they’re the “right kind” of immigrants. Wink wink.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      Will there be enough Republicans in the House and Senate to pass laws like that without Democrat support? All they’ll have is a simple majority in both.

      SCROTUS “reinterpreting” all the laws is the fascists’ best bet, I think.

      • gdog05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        Those Democrats have careers and families they care about. It doesn’t take much pressure to own a few of them. Especially without checks and balances and add in some bootlicking appointees to the three letter agencies.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          They’d need more than a few, though, more like dozens. It’ll just be all-out fascism without even a pretense of legitimacy at that point.

          • gdog05@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m pretty certain all out fascism is what we’re going to have. A handful of Democrats are not enough to hold democracy together. I don’t think it will be long before there’s not even a pretense of that being the case.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      The 14th amendment does not say it only applies to certain people or under certain circumstances.

      It does have one circumstance:

      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.

      I’m trying to figure out how they will argue that immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

      • evatronic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        If they aren’t, then border patrol would have no grounds to detain them. ICE could not deport them…

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Try this on for size: Trump follows Texas’s lead, and declares them to be invaders. Enemy combatants aren’t subject to the laws of the nation they are invading.

          Trump can argue that Border Patrol is performing a military role, rather than a law enforcement role.

      • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’ve only heard that applied to foreign diplomats. Because the parents have diplomatic immunity, they and their children aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Considering it’s how his followers already use their Bible, we can assume they have the same level of “reverence” for the constitution.

    • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      To be fair the 14th amendment was really only intended to give freed slaves citizenship. Which is something I’m sure the Supreme Court will cite as part of “original intent” they justify so many rulings with.

    • mokus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      Easy - declare that kids of illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then the 14th amendment doesn’t apply!

      Of course you’d probably still need legislation to do that, if not an amendment.

      I think he wants us to shit ourselves in public about this stuff so he can mock us, but the grandiose gestures he’s throwing around right now are mostly just laughably stupid. I’m still preparing for the shitstorm but I don’t think the big noises he’s making now are telegraphing the real plays.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      The only hope I hold onto is that we need a constitutional convention anyway. If this convinces states to actually trigger an Article 5 convention, then I’m all for it.

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Surprise? He’s threatened to throw out the constitution because “we don’t need it.” And he has SCOTUS and Congress to let him do what he wants. Plus he’ll have an AG that will basically be his lawyer. Trump is going to do whatever he wants.

    • SmilingSolaris@lemmy.worldBanned from community
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Fingers crossed that we have immortalized the constitution so hard that the military would coup him over this. Crazy that’s a thing I’m wishing for. Revolution would be cooler but this is America.

  • Floon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 months ago

    'Murica zealots who claim to love the Constitution have elected someone who wants to shred it. This is the darkest timeline.

  • EleventhHour@lemmy.worldBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 months ago

    “A mountain of opposition” to the public, maybe, but all the bitching from the ACLU, et al will mean nothing to a Republican majority in Congress.

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    Of all the Supreme Court precedents that are going on the chopping block, I certainly did not expect United States v. Wong Kim Ark on that list.

  • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    He wants lawsuits so he can appeal to the Supreme Court and they’ll rule in his favor.

  • DiagnosedADHD@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 months ago

    Genuine question: what happens to someone born in the US to non citizens? If they were born in the states, would they not have the citizenship of their parents country? At that point would they just have no citizenship anywhere?

    I’m sure if it came down to it their parents home country might grant their child citizenship, but it probably won’t be guaranteed…

  • Shanedino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    So he wants to increase the work done in the central government, therefor increasing spending and therfore taxes?

    Edit: /s

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      No dude, he’s going to fire most federal workers. He will replace some of them with sycophants . Read Project 2025