Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Here's how Trump plans on ending birthright citizenship:
14th Amendment: “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.”
Trump's argument:
If someone is not here legally, then the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" doesn't apply to them. Their kids aren't citizens.
I guess now he has to explain how he can deport people who aren't "subject to the jurisdiction".
This is contradictory of itself, because everyone inside the US is subject to it's jurisdiction. If this argument is true, then non-citizens (even visitors) would not be subject to US laws writ large. You can't pick and choose at your convenience. It's a stupid argument.
Oh but he can and will. Who will stop him?
You can't introduce contradictory laws and them de facto to effect.
He is also not personally going to be doing any of this, which means others will, and will be subject to the courts if they break the law. There are still federal judges and courts in this country, regardless of what SCROTUS seems to think.
You can't introduce contradictory laws and them de facto to effect.
Laws, schmaws.
He is also not personally going to be doing any of this, which means others will, and will be subject to the courts if they break the law.
Trump pardoned 1500+ violent insurrectionists yesterday.
There are still federal judges and courts in this country, regardless of what SCROTUS seems to think.
Judge shop until you hit on another Aileen Cannon.
You can do whatever the fuck you want if you think you are in charge. Not saying there won't be consequences but following laws hasn't really been this dudes MO.
Not saying there won't be consequences ...
There won't be consequences. There, I said it.
So did the Supreme Court. But that only applies for Republicans.
Well, except diplomats or foreign heads of state. That's the point of the language. A queen can't birth a prince here and he be eligible for the presidency down the road.
~~But unless they're in their consulate, they're on US soil, subject to the US~~
Edit: was totally wrong
Nope. Even off of consulate grounds, diplomatic immunity holds. It wouldn't be worth much if you were trapped in the embassy.
Sure, if they, e.g., murder someone and their home country waives diplomatic immunity, but otherwise they will just be sent home and possibly be charged there.
This is cool, I totally misunderstood what the immunity provided. Thanks for pointing it out. Read the wiki page on it after your comment.
You can if you have a pet Supreme Court.
That might even be a tough sell to this SCOTUS. It's going to be awfully hard to argue that people physically present in the United States aren't subject to its laws.
You're making the mistake of thinking they have to argue in good faith. Corporations are people and presidents are kings now, so all bets are off.
Not all presidents, just... One.
Yes, if they arent' subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you can't touch them.
It's obvious to anybody not deliberately misreading the text that this is meant to apply to people like foreign diplomats, who really are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. But then deliberately misreading the text is the specialty of the Roberts court, so who knows what they'd decide. Whatever some billionaires pays them to decide, I guess.
So if you’re here illegally you can just do literally anything you want… legally. A great argument to make.
"See? They're all lawless criminals!"
Builds wall twice as tall
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)
Did you just wake up from a 4 year nap?
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)
I know several Hispanic folks that voted for this asshat. Tokens get spent I guess.
I think it was an andrew callaghan interview where a trump supporter smirked and shrugged at trumps threats of mass deportations and just said 'I'm birthright'
Wonder if he's still smirking and shrugging.
Wonder if he's still smirking and shrugging.
Either way he'll still blame "the left". I guarantee it.
This is probably a good time to remind everyone to donate (if you have the means) to the ACLU and other groups fighting the good fight.
I struggle with this. I would under most circumstances agree and I get that we should be kicking and screaming as this happens. I just don’t know if even completely bank rolling the ACLU will help.
Not going to pretend to have the best legal understanding but doesn’t this eventually bubble up to the supreme court who will likely side with this current administration?
Unfortunately, our main recourse is a protest. Not a typical protest either. We need to have any citizen against this current administration to stop participating in consumerism. Buy the essentials, do whatever you need to do to survive, but stop there. No Prime day spending. No Super Bowl spending. No Memorial Day or Labor Day spending. Do this until all stocks tank. This will get the attention we want.
In his first term, Trump had the lowest win rate at the supreme Court of any president since FDR.
The court is filled with his lackeys this time, and they've stopped hiding their corruption.
I get that. But trump has continued to lose cases at the supreme court. Not all of them to be sure. But it clearly shows that it isn't a complete waste for these agencies to litigate.
Probably both are needed. Protests alert our leaders to what we do and don't like, which can help to reduce terrible legislation. Groups like the ACLU offer legal challenges to things that have already passed. Many people can't do both - but could do one of them.
I mean while lawsuits can still be filed, I guess?
I don't see that working or being effective anymore.
Well I'm sorry to see that little "X" has to go, and he was so adorable.
This can’t be changed by executive order. Only a constitutional amendment can end birthright citizenship. There’s no debate there. If the supreme court were to side with Trump on this, it would only delegitimize it even further.
Now, I think the usefulness of the 14th amendment has long run its course. Granting citizenship to slaves has not been an issue in more than a century.
Most countries in European, Asia, and Africa follow jus sanguinis to grant citizenship. I do not think a mother who has no ties to America should be able to award citizenship to their children for the mere presence in the country during birth.
Again, no executive order nor law from congress is the answer. But I do believe there is merit in debating this issue.
Supreme Court: Actually, you know that part of the Constitution that says "the"? Well we've decided what the founders really meant there was that trump can do whatever he wants, and you can't do anything about it. Also, you're all going to jail for getting uppity.
This can’t be changed by executive order. Only a constitutional amendment can end birthright citizenship. There’s no debate there. If the supreme court were to side with Trump on this, it would only delegitimize it even further.
I think it's pretty clear they don't care anymore. They have power, they've done what they need for the Republicans to stay in power forever, so they can stop pretending to be impartial and just rubber-stamp every conservative wet dream while thumbing their noses at the American people and saying "what are you doing to do about it, losers?"
I wonder how many times Trump will be impeached over his next 8 years?
I agree with him. We should make every person, no matter if they were born here and no matter how long someone has been alive, take a citizenship test, and if you can't pass it, you get deported. Since they will no longer be a citizen of any country, just float them on a barge out at sea. I don't care if you're 90 years old, and your family history dates back to the mayflower. You get tested, and if you fail, you get set adrift. I hope I can pass that test.
I’d emigrate right now based on your comment if it were actually allowed. Where do you think American citizens should go if their citizenship is revoked?
He just said, barge, adrift, at sea
That sounds lovely. Do they have universal healthcare on the barge?
Yes, but you won't like it at all.
[heaves the body overboard]
...where to? California... Why? I was born there...oh....
just float them on a barge out at sea
I hope I can pass that test.
I hope this is hyperbole.
Maybe everyone gets to be alien to this land? Then you gotta prove to want to be a citizen at 18? If you choose to not be a citizen, then you gotta keep running away from the raids? Sounds like so much fun and progressive thinking. Give that man a trophy... Wife.
Service guarantees citizenship.
