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.
wow, how lucky we are that the ultimate deciders on litigation are not a bunch of partisans hacks, right?
See, logic would dictate that this would be immediately laughed out of court since a change of this magnitude would require a Constitutional Amendment. The 14th amendment does not say it only applies to certain people or under certain circumstances.
Then I remembered what timeline we’re in. Trump will have this gleefully rammed through Congress, and the Supreme Court will uphold it based on the long-standing legal principle of “Yeah, but they’re brown…”
And this is how Trump invalidates the Constitution. Not by decree. But by spending 4 years sidestepping the Constitution and telling his base that it’s just an outdated piece of paper with a bunch of guidelines that can be safely ignored the minute they become inconvenient. Or at least, inconvenient for Republicans.
And he’ll do it to thunderous applause.
It’s been a week but feels like people are finally getting it.
There’s no checks and balances left, of all we have to hope is a line written on some paper many years ago, we’re fucked.
There’s no checks and balances left,
There is one left, but we’re not allowed to talk about it.
oof, bleak.
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.
Yes. Simple majority is all that’s needed in the House on most if not all matters anyway. And the only thing that would be in the GOP’s way would be the filibuster, which they can hand-wave away any time they want with a simple majority vote.
And keep in mind. They can just make up the rules as they go along now. They can literally play Calvinball with the Constitution. If Trump demands it, and the House and Senate vote for it, and the Supreme Court rubber stamps it, and the majority of state governments either go with it or at least don’t oppose it…who’s gonna stop them?
If Trump feels like saying that the 14th no longer applies to brown people because fuck you that’s why, and Congress votes in favor of a law that says the 14th no longer applies to brown people, and the Supreme Court says “Yep, fuck brown people.”, then that’s the law of the land regardless of what we think of it, because we individually do not have the power to stop it, and collectively just voted in favor of it.
And keep in mind…there’s nothing stopping Trump from replacing “the 14th no longer applies to brown people” with “Women no longer have the right to vote” or “Freedom of the Press does not apply to those critical of the Trump administration”. If no branch of government is willing to uphold and enforce the law, the law may as well not exist. The same goes for your rights and protections.
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.
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.
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.
I’m unfortunately inclined to agree.
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.
“Actually, we find that the 14th amendment really only applies to foreign white people, as the original founding fathers were slave owners who did not view either black or native american people as actual people, and certainly would not have granted them citizenship. Given the original intent of the Founding fathers, not only do we rule that the 14th amendment only applies to foreign white people, but we are simultaneously invalidating the Civil Rights act of 1964, reversing the previous Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education, and striking down the 19th amendment as an unconstitutional violation of the original intent of the Founding Fathers.”
– This supreme court, very possibly.
So were the 1800’s wave of European immigrants, that most white americans descended from, mostly naturalized or did they just use the 14th amendment too? I’m not be factious, I actually don’t know but always assumed it was the former.
Well, it was the 1800s, so I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of the time they just took the person’s word for it in the rare situations where it mattered, and how successful you were was probably based on how rich and white you looked. Think of it…how the hell was someone in Atlanta, Ga. supposed to prove or disprove whether the man standing in front of him was or wasn’t born in Boston, Ma? It’s not like they could call and verify or something. Probably little more than “Yeah, you look like you could be from Boston. You’re good.”
Considering it’s how his followers already use their Bible, we can assume they have the same level of “reverence” for the constitution.
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.
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.
'Murica zealots who claim to love the Constitution have elected someone who wants to shred it. This is the darkest timeline.
The Constitution gets shredded regularly. It’s a failed document.
“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.
“Official act.” That’s all it’ll take, I’m calling it now.
Dipshit whose family were immigrants wants to destroy immigration.
Peak ‘pulling the ladder up behind him.’
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.
He wants lawsuits so he can appeal to the Supreme Court and they’ll rule in his favor.
New SC Justice Cannon has entered the chat.
We are so seriously fucked.
Shit’s fucked
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…
Dude wants to help Musk become president.
So he wants to increase the work done in the central government, therefor increasing spending and therfore taxes?
Edit: /s
He only wants to get rid of Leon.
Unpopular opinion here, perhaps, but I don’t see the logic of birthright citizenship beyond its original intent of granting citizenship to former slaves. I actually think ending it might help some of the border crisis stuff. What other countries have it? The idea that at least one parent needs to be a citizen does not sound insane to me.
I think adding a legal unskilled temporary worker status might also mitigate the humanitarian issues.
What am I missing?
First off it really really fucking sucks to be stateless.
Secondly, if you grew up in America and got an American education, you’re American enough for me. We’ve invested a big chunk of money into training you so it’d be swell if you’d put that education to use in the American economy.
Lastly, as one of the favorite shirts on res points out - why the fuck do you assume you’re American anyways:
Honest question, do most countries in the Americas withhold citizenship from children born to citizens of that country who happen to be abroad? I’m just trying to understand how big the stateless thing would be
What other countries have it?
Countries influenced by English common law, so nearly every country in North and South America, Australia, and Europe.
You can’t possibly see the downside of people being born in your country but not having the same rights as citizens? What makes you think slavery wouldn’t return if it were ended?
You should really read up on things like H1B visas then. They were for skilled workers and still got abused in a variety of ways including to suppress wages and get more or less indentured workers. I know places like GameStop loved them because the person would basically forfeit their visas if they quit so could abuse them more than a regular worker.
The more power an employer has over a worker and the less rights people who live in the country have, the worse it will be in general.
I will do some reading then, thanks
English common law: a citizen is born in a land and that land was owned by a king. As such, the citizen and the land are like one. Citizens based upon birth are owed protection by the local king, while the local king is owed the work of said citizens.
The tradition of birthright citizenship is far older than the 14th Amendment. People were arguing about this crap in the middle ages.
Cool, you still can’t override a constitutional amendment via executive order if you want to pretend that law matters.
No, but the Supreme Court can by “reinterpreting” the Amendment.
