this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
328 points (99.7% liked)

politics

20522 readers
4348 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging President Trump's executive order to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are unlawfully present or have temporary legal status.

The order, set to take effect in 30 days, conflicts with the 14th Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship, upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898.

Critics argue the order creates a "subclass" of noncitizens, undermining fairness and equality.

The lawsuit seeks to block the order, which also directs agencies to stop issuing passports and recognizing affected children as citizens.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Critics argue the order creates a "subclass" of noncitizens, undermining fairness and equality. ??? Its literally unconstitutional. It directly says to not follow a specific part of the constitution. I would think that would be critique one. Its a non starter. No agency should follow it with a memo stating its unconstitutional nature that they send back to the requesting person or body who sent it down (who should not of but instead do the same thing)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Did you just wake up from a 4 year nap?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

what unconstitutional things have went in the last four years not part of the courts (who unfortunately can virtually change it do to their interpretation power)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you have to qualify with not part of the one of the three branches of government, your argument doesn't really hold.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the courts are that way because of letting the republicans hold office!!! Who knows how conservative the courts will get in the next four years of appointments. It completely holds.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The point being made is that "unconstitutional" doesn't exist for Republicans anymore. Since the court decides what is and isn't constitutional and they've given up any attempt at appearing not to be partisan hacks, what the Constitution says doesn't matter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

ah. I see to much. dur dur. this is the democrats fault because they were not enough better than republicans. even though I personally think they are light years apart. I mean mostly because of how bad republicans are nowadays but still. so I took the comment to be like biden was all unconstitutional and I was like. WHAT!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It wasn't to blame Democrats. Amy Coney Barrett and the make-up of SCOTUS just changed roughly 4 years ago.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

yeah that is the exactly the type of thing that drives me nuts with that type of thing. I get yours is not but I will get folks not taking any of that type of stuff into account and then we get more backsliding and such.