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.

  • balderdash@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago
    • Step 1: Reinterpret the 14th Amendment so hundreds of thousands of immigrants lose their citizenship
    • Step 2: Mass deportation
  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    2 days ago

    Here’s how Trump plans on ending birthright citizenship:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-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”.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

        • just_another_person@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

          • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

      • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • nieminen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          But unless they’re in their consulate, they’re on US soil, subject to the US

          Edit: was totally wrong

          • mriguy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Nope. Even off of consulate grounds, diplomatic immunity holds. It wouldn’t be worth much if you were trapped in the embassy.

          • EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            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.

            • nieminen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              This is cool, I totally misunderstood what the immunity provided. Thanks for pointing it out. Read the wiki page on it after your comment.

    • mriguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      So if you’re here illegally you can just do literally anything you want… legally. A great argument to make.

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 days ago

    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)

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        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)

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

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

          • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

            • candybrie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.

              • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                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!

                • candybrie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 hours ago

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

    • Glitterbomb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • balderdash@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago
        • Step 1: Reinterpret the 14th Amendment so tens of thousands of immigrants lose their citizenship
        • Step 2: Mass deportation
      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Wonder if he’s still smirking and shrugging.

        Either way he’ll still blame “the left”. I guarantee it.

  • sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

  • radiohead37@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Congress denied Obama’s SCOTUS pick, Trump rushed through several judges, and now Trump’s signing executive orders prompting the SCOTUS to reinterpret the Constitution. Even if you agree with Trump this sets an incredibly bad precedent.

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • mriguy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      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?”

  • Reality_Suit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Ok, hear me out: this may be an opportunity to make a deal.

    Because I am willing to bet that the number of people with citizenship due to “birth tourism” is far less than the number of DREAMers in the country. And I am also willing to bet that there are a lot of “accidental Americans” who were born here, then their family immediately went back home, and who do not consider themselves American in any way, yet the IRS wants to tax their income. (Wasn’t that clown Boris Johnson in this predicament, and have to formally renounce his US citizenship when he ran for UK Prime Minister?)

    Schumer and Jeffries should call Donald Trump up right now and say that if he supports the DREAM act and adopts the bipartisan immigration framework from last year, then they will support an amendment that pushes this issue closer to what some European countries do: only give citizenship on birth to people who have at least one parent who is a US citizen, permanent resident, or has formal refugee status. They will have to carve out an exception for newborns who have no practical claim for citizenship anywhere else, but how often is a child born here whose mother has no citizenship claim anywhere else?

    Heck, find a way to call it the TRUMP amendment and he will be instantly inclined to agree.

    I am willing to make a bet that there is a way to modify things to be a net benefit for everyone: DREAMers get to stay, nobody becomes an “accidental American”, and, perhaps most importantly (to him), Trump gets to say he did a thing that neither Obama nor Biden did - amend the Constitution.

    • draneceusrex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why are we talking about Dreamers again now, when they weren’t talked about for the whole 4 fucking years of the Biden Administration? The June Executive Action was fine, but it will now obviously go nowhere, if not be rolled back. Tired of these people being used as a pawn piece. Legislation should have been pushed in '21 and finally taken care of them.

    • KnightontheSun@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I do appreciate you offering a solution, but I am in no way comfortable with letting he or anyone within his sphere opening up write-mode on the Constitution.

      Perhaps it hardly matters as it has been reduced to being used in the loo for a while now.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        But that’s the whole point: we’re not giving Donnie a sharpie and telling him to go to town, we’re trying to work together as a country to address things. In fact, the President has no role at all in the amendment process. You need 2/3 of both houses of Congress, then you need 3/4 of individual states to ratify it.

        If the President wants to do this the right way, he will need Democrats’ help. And that involves making a deal. He says he is a bigly deal maker, and if he makes this deal his influence will easily push that amendment to the majorities it needs.

  • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Lawsuits don’t matter. Nothing matters anymore. We are fucked. We are literally all going to get fucking killed by a fascist leader. It’s over.