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.
with critics calling it unconstitutional.
You don’t need to be a critic to call it unconstitutional. It is, as it contradicts an Amendment.
I never ever ever want to hear anymore excuses from democrats about “oh, but we did kinda do the one thing. Governance is hard, and we just couldn’t get 100% of Congress to agree. The republicans bullied us until we came and we’re all out of gas :(”
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.
argues against the 14th Amendment
critics calling it unconstitutional
Uuuuh yeaaah, no shit…
states should arrest border patrol agents attempting this.
Democrats should threaten to charge anyone attempting this of human trafficking.
I think recent events have shown Democrats are incapable of helping anybody but themselves. And even then they’re shit.
Would you like to know more?
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.
You jest but serving in the US military is a legit way to gain citizenship.
I was under the impression that only US citizens could serve, no?
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.
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.
I mean it makes sense, from a pragmatic point of view.
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.
Only the second one matters
Lol, neither of them matter, bud.
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.
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.
unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute
It absolutely does! That’s the point!
Probably with “The founders only wanted what I think they wanted, despite their explicit instructions”
Interpreting old texts to match their own personal beliefs is what Christo fascists are best at.
And they’re not even fucking good at that. The only thing they truly excel at is spreading hate.
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.
Don’t worry, the bootlickers in the Supreme Court will find the dumbest argument you ever heard to rationalize it.
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?
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.
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?
The laws don’t have to make sense as long as they’re in power.
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.
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.
Welcome to US constitutional law!
So, why did they write it?
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.
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.
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.
We can finally deport Ted Cruz. Pack your bags bitch!
No. Keep him. Kevin o’leary too.
Only if you promise to make the entire US your 14th Province, or no deal!
Stay tuned for a new constitutional crisis every day!
Just one per day? I’m expecting at least two.
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.
Constitutional lawyers are going to be making a fortune over the next 4 years. Fuck you America. Just fuck y’all.
The payload
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:
(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or
(2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Which is absolutely ridiculous. In the first case if they aren’t subject to your jurisdiction then you cannot deport them. And in the second they would not need a visa. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t make them subject to our laws without them being subject to the United State’s Jurisdiction.
That’s not true. Even diplomats, who this clause was written for, can be expelled from the country.
Even that’s a limited form of jurisdiction. Managed by treaty, the same level as the Constitution.
Trump’s SCOTUS will take care of this, no problem.
I’ve actually thought the law to be very stupid and old.
