80
Trump Vows to End Birthright Citizenship and Pardon Jan. 6 Rioters in NBC Interview
(www.nytimes.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
80 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19233 readers
2750 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Supreme Court will decide that the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment actually means they weren't born here if their parents aren't citizens. They don't have to repeal amendments when they can just make shit up.
An 1898 case already decided that children born to permanent residents who are not on a diplomatic mission, are US Citizens.
If they overturn a 1898 decision, we're gonna be in some real trouble.
The most likely scenario I see is they will decide that birthright citizenship doesn't apply to children of unauthorized immigrants, since the supreme court never ruled on it.
The Roberts court has shown that they don't care about stare decisis, precedents, or facts (ex. the photographer who had no legitimate standing on account of not actually receiving requests from a same-sex couple and having fabricated one instead). I wouldn't hold my breath on that case not being overturned.
True, I'm just being optimistic.
But counterpoint: There was a court case in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson) that said racial segregation was legal. This is the same court 2 years later also upholding birthright citizenship.
I don't think the current court has a mindset that's even older than a 1896 supreme court mindset.
That said, republicans could always pack more judges with an even older pre- civil war mindset, that is much worse than the 1896 court. Only time will tell.
Alito cited a 17th century jurist in his justification for overturning Roe v. Wade. That's 1600s, a century before the US was founded and not relevant to extant law.
Yikes.
Welp, back to slavery 🤷♂️
What about authorized migrants on visa? My sister was born in the US the years after my parents moved there on work visa.
Unfortunately, that court rulling never mentioned those, but I'm gonna be optimistic and assume the courts intent was that children of people who legally entered the country have birthright citizenship (assuming the parent's visas haven't expired at the time of the birth). But there's no way to know for sure. We'll have to wait and see exactly how conservative this court gets.
The court ruled that:
Basically, the only points of contention that I know of were:
and more recently, the concept of an "illegal alien" as appeared so now the debate is on:
Since neither of these points of contention differentiates between permanent resident and other forms of legal entry, I'm gonna be optimistic and say that your sister will have birthright citizenship.
And even if they do end birthright citizenship, it might not be retroactive, since that paperwork is just gonna be insane, we can't track the parents of every child born in the us, so it might just be applied from now on.
Hopefully my assumption will be correct. Time will tell.
Thanks!
Actually I'm sure it's even easier for them:
"It says no STATE and since this is coming from the federal government it isn't a state so it's totally cool!"
If they're not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" they can't be held accountable for any crimes.
So uh... Congrats immigrants on being just as free as Donald Trump I guess?