this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
329 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2625 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kinsnik@lemmy.world 115 points 1 week ago

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

[–] shittydwarf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 79 points 1 week ago (4 children)

My brother in Christ his family were immigrants here at one point, not to mention his wife and her parents..

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 65 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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 14 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

My brother in Christ his family were immigrants here at one point, not to mention his wife and her parents…

But she had a decent rack 20 years ago so that qualifies her and everybody associated with her under the "look at those tits, tho" exception.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 70 points 1 week ago (9 children)

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.

[–] 4grams@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There’s no checks and balances left,

There is one left, but we're not allowed to talk about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] gdog05@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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".

[–] roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week 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 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

"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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.world 5 points 1 week 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.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

“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.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

"Official act." That's all it'll take, I'm calling it now.

[–] Floon@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

The Constitution gets shredded regularly. It's a failed document.

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

And how likely is it that a conservative majority SC will stand up to Trump?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dipshit whose family were immigrants wants to destroy immigration.

[–] Inucune@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Peak 'pulling the ladder up behind him.'

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week 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 16 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Breve@pawb.social 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is 100% because they are also going to try and ban abortion. They only want "the right people" being forced into making new US ~~wage slave consumers~~ citizens.

[–] joker125@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

New SC Justice Cannon has entered the chat.

We are so seriously fucked.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DiagnosedADHD@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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..

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

I'm not aware of any country where the child would not automatically be eligible for the parents citizenship, even if the child is born abroad.

Basically only people with money would be able to 'earn' citizenship I suspect. Anyone else is left out of school, social programs, etc purposely.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They would be stateless, yes

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ynthrepic@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Dude wants to help Musk become president.

load more comments
view more: next ›