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.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    300
    ·
    10 days ago

    Fourteenth Amendment 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.

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    I don’t get how you square those two together.

    • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      124
      ·
      10 days ago

      Probably with “The founders only wanted what I think they wanted, despite their explicit instructions”

      • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        102
        ·
        10 days ago

        Interpreting old texts to match their own personal beliefs is what Christo fascists are best at.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Look no further than the dissent to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (when the Supreme Court ruled that the passage you cited grants citizenship by birthright), written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the mastermind behind such legal opinions as:

      • Racial segregation is completely legal (Plessy v. Ferguson)
      • States can’t regulate workplace conditions or enact maximum working hours laws (Lochner v. New York)
      • Income tax is unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust)

      Anyway, he wrote:

      the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute

      and

      [Birthright citizenship means] the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

      So in other words, he was willing to rule that the constitution is optional as long as you are using it against undesirable races in order to get his way.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      10 days ago

      You just lie about the second part and have a government full of sycophants and a corrupt Supreme Court that declares that everything you do is by definition legal.

    • anubis119@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      It’s why they used the language of “invaders”. 14th amendment doesn’t provide protection for invaders. This is the first step in working around the constitution.

    • Arbiter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      10 days ago

      Don’t worry, the bootlickers in the Supreme Court will find the dumbest argument you ever heard to rationalize it.

      • futatorius@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        They don’t need to find a good argument. There’s nobody holding them accountable.

        Not that there are any good arguments.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      I’m sure Scalia will find some 15th century witch burner who’s writings justify it somehow.

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      Sophistry and bullshit, that’s how. Authoritarians don’t base anything on reason. It’s all “because I said so, and because I have a gun pointed at your head.”

    • Xanthobilly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      SCOTUS: well you see here, I can’t seem to find my reading glasses between these stacks of cash… ah yes here they are, it’s legal because we say so.

  • Cool_Name@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    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?

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      84
      ·
      10 days ago

      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?

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 days ago

        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”.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        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…

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 days ago

        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.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 days ago

            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.

            • credo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              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.

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Unless they completely throw out the Constitution they still have to let the states run elections. And the States generally aren’t interested in rigging their elections.

      • nutcase2690@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        I was worried about this and had to check, the executive order text has a section which states it only applies to those born 30 days after the signing of the EO. Who knows what the fuck the supreme court will extrapolate that to, though.

    • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

    • thomas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      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.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    111
    ·
    9 days ago

    with critics calling it unconstitutional.

    You don’t need to be a critic to call it unconstitutional. It is, as it contradicts an Amendment.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      You jest but serving in the US military is a legit way to gain citizenship.

      • droans@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        9 days ago

        It’s not a guarantee, though, but it should be. If you serve for, say, 5 years and have not been dishonorably discharged, you should be automatically eligible for citizenship.

        As of now, serving only exempts you from the continuous residence and physical presence requirements. You still need to be a permanent resident, know English, understand the US government and history, and demonstrate “good moral character” for at least a year out of the military.

        Permanent residency shouldn’t be mandated for soldiers. They’re choosing to serve for the US - isn’t that enough? The English and US government/history requirement should be waived under the assumption that they understand all of those well enough after training and serving in the military. Good moral character really is just that you haven’t committed any serious crime which is fine.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          9 days ago

          My dad was in the air force for years, was incredibly sympathetic to immigrants and openly called for more immigration. But was hesitant to say service should guarantee citizenship.

          Notably he was also very critical of Heinlein. Though he did like the bits that weren’t heavy handed political philosophy.

          He thought that a direct route from service to citizenship would create a militia class of immigrants. It would be very attractive to a certain group of people who’s interests may not align with those of the US.

          It was a security threat, he thought. And it seems like this attitude is shared by the DoD.

          • ours@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 days ago

            For an illustration of how this could wrong, we just need to look at the French Foreign Legion and how they attempted to assassinate De Gaule over Indochina.

      • zabadoh@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        That’s currently true, but I was also referring to the universe of Starship Troopers (the movie, vs the Heinlein novel), where it appears that birthright citizenship is no more, and military service (to the crypto-fascist government) is the only realistic path to citizenship for most US residents in that universe.

        • Triasha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          Oh no. You can volunteer without citizenship.

          They can say no, but we have non citizens serving.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 days ago

      very fucking funny (by which I mean not funny at all) that I can take the test, pay roughly a grand, and be considered more secure in my citizenship than someone born here.

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • phughes@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      next Democrat president

      LOL. Fascism is here. There will never be another Democrat president.

      • quixote84@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        9 days ago

        Fascism is here in part because Democrat presidents aren’t actually on a different team.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 days ago

          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.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          9 days ago

          Ah the both parties are the same guy. Always here, never correct, never helpful.

        • phughes@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 days ago

          I get the impression is that in your mind there are only two teams: people who agree with you 100% and everyone else.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      9 days ago

      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

    • watson387@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      9 days ago

      Yeah, if they let him start dictating constitutional amendments by executive order there definitely won’t be a next election.

    • Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      the next Democrat president

      lol, cute of you to think there will be a “next election”.

    • Critical_Thinker@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      Doesn’t work because the legal body is republican controlled. Only republican choices are above the law.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    10 days ago

    states should arrest border patrol agents attempting this.

    Democrats should threaten to charge anyone attempting this of human trafficking.

    • TammyTobacco@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      I think recent events have shown Democrats are incapable of helping anybody but themselves. And even then they’re shit.

    • GuitarSon2024@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Except for the liberal bubbles in Houston and Dallas, I’m pretty sure most Texans are pretty gung-ho in favor of this and will be giving border patrol agents free lunches. No ICE, DHS, or Border Patrol agents will be getting arrest by the southern states

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        You’re forgetting Arizona and California. Arizona’s Blue Wave is particularly left leaning too…

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        supposing democrats wake up a little (fat chance) federal democrats should say that they will ensure any person that attempts to act outaside the guardrails of the constitution will be charged with crimes when they regain power.

  • starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 days ago

    just now realizing everything I have done in my life in trying to contribute less plastic and waste less is not even 0.00001% compared to the environmental damage these executive orders are going to do.

    • Tire@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Take off your individualism hat and put on your collective hat. Group actions make a difference.

    • ShadowWalker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 days ago

      The “you are personally responsible for climate change” was always a scam. It is the big corporations that are responsible.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      I’m upset that I’m too ingrained in my ways to become a greedy, racist, sexist, boorish asshole because those guys are gonna have an amazing four years.

  • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    Love how he swore an oath to uphold the constitution then a few hours later signs and executive order that goes against it

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 days ago

      Just like he has one executive order for energy production and another to pause offshore wind farm leases

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    Constitutional lawyers are going to be making a fortune over the next 4 years. Fuck you America. Just fuck y’all.

  • N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    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.

    • nomy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    9 days ago

    “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.

    • capital_sniff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.