Summary
Trump announced plans to end birthright citizenship via executive action, despite its constitutional basis in the 14th Amendment.
He also outlined a mass deportation policy, starting with undocumented immigrants who committed crimes and potentially expanding to mixed-status families, who could face deportation as a unit.
Trump said he wants to avoid family separations but left the decision to families.
While doubling down on immigration restrictions, Trump expressed willingness to work with Democrats to create protections for Dreamers under DACA, citing their long-standing integration into U.S. society.
Anyone in the US who believes they have any sort of legal protection is just delusional. The only protection that exists there is through money.
We’re basically going back to an older era where rights are much less certain. Think of the rights people in the US had before Roe v Wade. Yep, we are basically back to before Roe v Wade was passed. That’s the America we live in.
We’re going back to the “political spoils” system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
Go back far enough in time, and the US is gonna start another slave trade.
😖
So is he going to stop renting his penthouses in Florida to Russians so they can have babies here to be US citizens? Or does his plan only affect brown people?
Russians will be granted amnesty because of their willingness to accept our deportations into their labor camps.
As if Trump will share the forced labor.
No, this is an end run around the 14th and 13th amendments.
He’s going to round up the brown people and reinstall slavery.
This is libelous. The Russian penthouses are in NYC.
Just the browns.
“Doesn’t the 14th Amendment pose a problem for that plan?”
“Not a problem, no one handles amendments like me. 14 amendments is nothing, when I…when I do the Christ stuff before food I do 15, 30, 100 amendments. And people say ‘Wow, you are so good with the amendments, no one does the amendments like you.’ So I got that all taken care of.”He actually already opened an office to review and attempt to take away citizenship from people who already earned it, back in 2020.
The Supreme Court in historically (and I can only imagine the current court will be the worst so far) has never been able to count to 14 much less interperate it.
Start with musk or stfu
Or barron
Musk doesn’t have birthright citizenship. As much as we wish he’d just go away, I hope you’re not suggesting they should expand this program to strip naturalized citizens.
Will be funny if they have a falling out and Trump rage enforces this against him.
That would literally be the single funniest thing that has ever happened in the history of mankind.
They will inevitably have a falling out because they are both nepo baby idiots who can’t maintain long term relationships aside from sycophants and bootlickers.
Only thing naturalized about him is his bank account which is what has kept him off the icehouse list
He lied on his Visa papers and is literally an illegal immigrant.
He worked on a student visa after dropping school.
That’s illegal, so he shouldn’t have qualified for naturalization without correcting that and leaving the country before reapplying.
So you agree that he doesn’t have birthright status?
You’re barking up a tree that really doesn’t need it.
I feel like there should be a saying involving palm trees with this, as their bark is very different and they are actually closer to grasses than most trees.
Chop down a palm tree and count the rings to see how old it is, the answer is 0. They don’t make rings, much like a blade of grass. They are fn dinosaur grass basically. (They were around back then). It’s also part of how they can bend and not snap as easily during high winds.
You understand the bark here is about a dog baying that they’ve treed an animal you’re hunting like a raccoon, but the raccoon isn’t in that tree, right?
Why would a raccoon chase a dog up a left tree? 🌴
Haha yeah, I get what the saying is about
She gets it
Not sure how he plans on deporting people who were born in the United States and have no citizenship anywhere else since not every country automatically gives it to people’s children born abroad.
They would effectively have no home country to deport them too.
Meaning they will stay in the concentration camps until Trump’s Final Solution is implemented.
I should invest in corrections, sounds like a goldmine
Slavery is much more economically viable than extermination. So, thank you capitalism, I think?
But you also have to keep slaves relatively healthy to maintain them working. If you slaves get too hungry, they can’t do whatever labor you make em do. If they get real sick, it’s going to affect your other slaves.
And human slaves usually don’t put their heads down and do it forever. A lot of the Nazi labor camps massacred their captives because they started uprisings.
There is nothing economically feasible with what they want. They just think they can do what they want and he even richer. Which is why you can look at the entirety of recorded human history for these same mistakes being repeated over and over again.
They also don’t seem to know or tend to forget that it only needs a relatively small percentage of the population to flat out resist for society to stop working. Only a few hundreds of thousands of protesters in East Germany brought the country to its knees and effectively ended the Cold War.
That’s easy, you just continue to expand the list of “undesirables”.
A “Fine ol’ solution” as they say in Florida
He doesn’t plan on shit. Even this Supreme Court would tell him to fuck off.
Given that the Supreme Court ruled that all official (who decides?) acts are legal, I have no faith in them.
That didn’t stop them from deporting people to Mexico in the 30s. A senator at the time estimated that 60% of those who were removed from the country were US Citizens
They can’t do that unless Mexico agrees. They can’t just drive people down to San Diego and then shove them into Tijuana.
They would effectively become stateless. And how they do what from there depends a lot on where they are forcefully relocated to. Assuming the majority will be forced into Mexico, Mexico has an established legal process for accepting refugees. Through the application process, if approved, you (and your family unit) would gain permanent residency. It’s not the same as citizenship, but you could stay there indefinitely and have mostly the same rights as Mexican citizens. You might run into issues with getting passports and traveling internationally, but at the least, you would be able to stay in Mexico. That depends on your refugee application being approved, and I’d imagine when the numbers cross over into the millions their established system would break down a bit and there would probably be very long delays during which you could be deported.
If it’s somewhere else, well, it varies widely. Most of the Caribbean islands have comparatively smaller populations and probably only handle migration on a small scale. It’s very hard to say how things would play out. Many would almost certainly be forced to illegally immigrate back into America.
Even bigger question: what then?
Say you deport a citizen of Mexican origin to Mexico. Can’t they just, you know, go back? They’re citizens, with a passport/id.
The only alternative is to strip them (at least de facto) of their citizenship, which is literally a Hitler move (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_über_den_Widerruf_von_Einbürgerungen_und_die_Aberkennung_der_deutschen_Staatsangehörigkeit, only a German source, unfortunately).
Happened to my grandfather. A Jew born in Germany who emigrated to England in the late 1920s. I have his naturalisation papers from when he became a citizen of the UK in 1936 and his nationality is listed as “stateless.”
Yes they’ll have to revoke citizenship.
Which may be the end goal, use this as a wedge to convince their base that revoking citizenship may be justified in some cases.
You don’t even need to read the article. The title states quite clearly this is about citizenship not residence.
Hello. Australian here. Just ask our sadistic government. We do it all the time. Hint: It involves putting people in camps.
Little camps for homework. Where you can concentrate.
You are missing out on a key component of their plan: concentration camps.
He has outright said that he plans on using the same law that was used to justify the internment of Japanese citizens during WW2.
Literal concentration camps are coming.
He was already shocked Bahamas turned down his “offer” to send them deported people. I think it’s only a matter of time before they send a plane somewhere anyhow and get US flights promptly banned everywhere.
first idea of his that i dont find completely stupid
You uh… okay with voiding parts of the Constitution with a vote in Congress? or Executive Order?
im not american, but if youre trying to justify a system where it is extremely difficult to change laws and rules that are outdated or no longer feasable, be my guest.
The entire reason they’re so hard to change is so they don’t get changed on a whim. If it’s in that document it’s because 3/4 of every elected representative in every state thought it was that important. Letting Congress change something like that with a simple majority or filibuster majority is ridiculous and means either party could completely re-write the basis of our laws at will just by changing that document. For example instead of trying to change and enforce every law about marriage and benefits they could simply pass a constitutional change to define marriage conservatively and let the courts go through striking down the now unconstitutional normal laws.
Making that document hard to change is one of the things America got right.
It’s only a core tenet of our country after all
as are guns. both are not necessarily beneficial
You have to have experience with a certain kind of person, in order to accept that they exist, in order to accept that weapons is the only way to deal with them, in order to get the second amendment.
It’s possible to think it through logically, but generally speaking people refuse to accept the existence of that kind of person, and refuse to let go of the idea that there may be some way to change the person’s intentions and choices without violence, so that neither party initiates violence.
The ultimate utility of weapons comes from that one kind of person, who just won’t pay heed to anything else. Until you’ve been forced to accept their existence in reality, the mind is just unwilling to entertain it.
what
TLDR: if you can’t conceive of a reason to need weapons it is because you have noy encountered a person for whom no other options exist to influencce their behavior.
that is some suggestive bs
Why shouldn’t someone born in a country get citizenship regardless of who their parents are?
Why is punishing a child for what their parents did not completely stupid?
That’s some apartheid-level shit.
why is this a punishment? do you realize that if you are born on a vacation of your parents, this prevents you from getting citizenship. is this logical to you?
do you realize that if you are born on a vacation of your parents, this prevents you from getting citizenship.
That is absolutely false.
My 86-year old mother is house-bound but she is the daughter of two immigrants who came over in the 1910’s, so I guess she’s gonna be shipped off to another country. I have no idea if my brother and I, both in our 50’s would be subjected to deportation considering we haven’t lived with her in over 30 years.
Maybe the US shouldn’t have elected an out-and-out racist asshole.
I’m the child of an immigrant and a native-born person. So does half of my citizenship get taken away?
Decide which half of you body gets to stay
The lower half. I might lose my penis, but I get to keep my brain.
Unless this is a vertical bisection of course. Then the left side because I’m left-handed.
Although I wouldn’t have my right brain hemisphere anymore… Now I’m confused.
Trump opted to deport his brain and he’s going to be a 2 time president. May want to keep the penis.
I don’t know… It has already served its biological purpose and the brain’s got the pleasure center.
Congrats, nearly everyone in the written history of america are immigrants. Anyone after the declaration ? Gone! Immigrants from first and second world war? Gone! Good old usa! ( /s incase its not obvious)
It’s never going to stop surprising me when a politician says he’s going to do something, I tell people, and then he does it but so many people were still caught completely off guard. I imagine this is how many in the UK feel about Brexit.
I’m surprised that you’re surprised that they’re surprised.
I didn’t expect anyone to take it this far
Surprising, isn’t it?
For real Brexit was a stunning result. I just remember this post results interview with same randoms about it and one of the yes voters was like “yea I just through it was never going to happen and voted yes as a laugh.”
It’s unreal. Days after the election, people I work with were saying that Project 2025 was just propaganda and that he’s not actually going to do all the stuff he said he would do.
That’s my mother to a T. She defends all the batshit stuff he spews by saying it’s just a negotiating tactic to get to some “reasonable” compromise. Which may well be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that his opening bid is always something batshit insane and/or cruel, and that he would happily go through with it, if he were allowed to.
What about his birthright citizenship? His family came to the Americas as immigrants too.
Classic “Got mine, fuck you”.
His mother was from Scotland. Also, all of his kids except Tiffany should be denied birthright citizenship, right?
And his wife, and her parents 😂
He doesn’t mean white people, silly.
He’s orange though
He doesn’t mean the denizens of Loompaland either. They’re the good Africans.
Yeah and the citizenship he fixed during his previous term for the parents of Melania is also completely fine. It’s just all the other ones that need to be deported. “deport all the immigrants! (selectively, based on racism that is)”
Like his wife and his DOGE crony?
The rules do not apply to the rich. I think at this point he has made that clear over and over again.
Okay, we don’t need to go adding extra stupid stuff. At the base level you’re doing their normalization for them. At the high level we need an accurate idea of what’s coming so we can prepare.
Watching the actual interview it’s clear he makes some assertions. They don’t want to separate families so they will send the US citizens with the family if the family wants. What this generally means is when the parents are undocumented but a kid is a citizen. This interview does not support denaturalizing people, (but he did do that in his first term), or forcing American citizens in a mixed status family who are adults to leave.
On the 14th the interviewer wanted and got an answer from an 80 year old partially senile man. His first, natural answer to the 14th amendment question was he would go to the people. He only noncommittally said he would look at an EO when then interviewer kept asking him but what about an executive order. If he’s mentioned doing that before the proper way is to bring up what he said before and see if he still holds that position. Not repeating, “but what about an EO” 5 times until you get the funny and the headline writers can celebrate.
The open question is how will this highly suggestable man fare around the likes of Stephen Miller.
This piece of shit is just trying to get rid of his wife and unattractive children.
14th Amendment to the US Constitution
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Whether or not children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship was never ruled on. A 1898 case (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) ruled that children of permanent residents have birthright citizenship, but never said anything about unauthorized immigrants.
This supreme court could rule on it, which is probably gonna be that unauthorized immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, therefore, their children do not get birthright citizenship.
I mean that’s the loophole they are gonna exploit, I don’t agree with it, but that’s what is gonna happen.
If they’re not “subject to the jurisdiction”, doesn’t that mean they can just commit whatever crimes they want? Could they even be deported?
But that assumes the Republicans would be logical and consistent, when they are neither.
Nah.
If, say, a foreign countey invaded the us.
Ok, say, Canada invaded New York. People born in New York after Canada’s invasion no longer have birthright citizenship. And let’s say, the US had a federal abortion ban nationwide. You are born in Canadian Occupied New York. You are a woman. You accidentally got pregnant. No worries, you just get an abortion, its legal in Canada.
Okay a few month after you get the abortion, the US counterattacks and recaptures New York.
You are still not gonna be a US citizen.
But you got an illegal abortion. You are gonna go on trial for getting an illegal abortion.
Nope you are still not a citizen.
#Shenanigans.
which is probably gonna be that unauthorized immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
From opening arguments podcast they said that was intended if say Mexico or Canada invaded, the soldiers bring their wives who give birth, then those kids are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and not to be granted citizenship.
Of course lawyers can twist anything and scotus is rigged, so expect that.
Fun fact (or rather, a not-so-fun fact)
Native Americans living in reservations used to be considered not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” so they weren’t given US citizenship, even thought their ancestors have been here before the first colonists. If that bullshit can happen, nothing is stopping this biased af supreme court to say that undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Also, conservative justices often cited this idea of “Original Intent”. So they could argue that the original intent of the people who wrote the admendment was give only legal immigrants and their children the birthright citizenship, not people who sneaked in.
Theres so many loopholes they can exploit. They are the final say on what the constitution means, after all.
Couldn’t Trump just declare it that it’s an official act?
Yeah, it’s there, but as we’ve clearly seen, if the law isn’t enforced, or is selectively enforced, it might as well not exist.
Hell this exact amendment was openly ignored for nearly a century in that it is also meant to provide equality under the law for all citizens. But Women couldn’t even vote for decades after this amendment was passed. Then there were a ton of laws on the books that were actively enforced that discriminated on race, sex, etc. Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement should not have been necessary after this amendment was passed. And yet…
Start by getting rid of Ted Cruz, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Melania and all the Trump kids.
Isn’t it crazy that only one person on that list is just a mere millionaire, the rest are billionaires?
Jr posted “Internet let’s do your thing, let’s find this guy” because he knew it was attack on his class.
If we want to Make America Great Again we needed to get rid of these parasites. They make us fight with each other, while they are the reason we get poorer and poorer.
Ate you saying Malaria is a billionaire?
It’s the same family.
14A S3 wasn’t enforced, why should 14A S1 be?
Because it wasn’t previously decided. However, in this case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is the Supreme Court ruling that determined the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States regardless of race or nationality.
In order to reverse, the court itself has to do it. Not that it wouldn’t.
deleted by creator
Not all persons, but children of permanent residents. (children of US citizens already has birthright citizenship, they are expanding onto that)
The issue of unauthorized immigrants were never answered in the court case.
They are going to claim that if their patents are here illegally they aren’t ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. No matter how stupid that idea is their supreme court may let it go anyway. They already shit all over other parts of the 14th.
Birthright. If you are born here, you are a citizen. That’s what they are talkin1g about.
There’s no confusion over the subject, just an expectation that the current SCOTUS could play the “Constitution doesn’t apply if the mother had no legal standing to actually be in the US” argument. That technically that hasn’t been established, and that there’s an implicit expectation that people giving birth in the US are legally recognized to be in the US, and all bets are off if the mother isn’t legally allowed in the US but gives birth in the US anyway. To the extent they seek being explicit about legal standing, they may point to the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” words as stating an illegal presence means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the state.
Doesn’t saying they’re not “subject to jurisdiction” mean they’re outside general reach of the legal system, like a crime-drama character claiming diplomatic immunity?
I’d love to see someone pull that string.
Let’s see how much the Constitution matters in a month and a half. Everyone who responds to the upcoming Trump madness with “it’s unconstitutional” are in for a rude awakening.
DoJ: “My lord, is that… constitutional?”
SCOTUS: “I will make it constitutional”
I think that’s too far. It’s such a good story, and it’s the way it’s always been in my lifetime before: you’re born in the USA, you get automatic US citizenship. No matter why your parents happen to be here. Maybe you have a layover in Miami on the way from Buenos Aires London, you go into labor and have the child at a hospital near the airport, that kid is a US citizen.
That makes sense to me (admittedly, probably because that’s the way it’s always been).
It’s like a nice little bonus for some people, and people can aim for it, and it’s a good story.
Abortion rights was always how it had been in my lifetime, but look at us now.
I am not a lawyer, this is my interpretation of the situation.
So heres what I think will happen.
Birthright citizenship will not be completely gone.
To recap, 14th Amendment, Section1 says:
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.
What will most likely happen is the DoJ under trump will take it to the supreme court, then the 6 conservatives will rule that unauthorized immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, so therefore their children do not get citizenship at birth. Maybe this is retroactive, maybe it applies from then on, I don’t know.
But thats the most likely scenario.
Because we had a very conservative court back in the 1898 (remember, black people in this era couldn’t even vote in southern states) that ruled that (United States v. Wong Kim Ark)
a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.
So I doubt this supreme court is more conservative than a 1898 supreme court so they most likely are not overturning that.
Basically, that court ruled that children of permanent residents have birthright citizenship, but never ruled on whether children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship. This 6-3 supreme court is gonna answer that. Which is gonna be a no, unfortunately.
More likely, a lower court shoots it down, and there’s no basis for an appeals court to do anything different. They tweak it and try again. That one also fails. Try again.
Eventually, they get something that threads the needle. This is how the “Muslim ban” went.
I mean, the supreme court could always pull out the “Original Jurisdiction” BS and take it straight there.
There are two other factors at work:
- A bunch of conservative-related businesses know what a clusterfuck it will be for their bottom line; that will push the Supreme Court to pretend there’s no issue here
- The Supreme Court can only take so many cases at a time
Even if we assume they’re just going to bypass the usual ladder up the federal court system, they can’t do that on everything just as a practical matter.
I concur with your interpretation. But as for your final line, I’m not sure why this interpretation is unfortunate. We need to streamline and overhaul the immigration process for sure, but why is encouraging unregulated immigration a good thing?
I say unfortunately because there could be problems with a child of an undocumented immigrant that is born and grew up in the US for their entire life, then suddenly losing their citizenship because of a court decision.
Maybe if the decision did not apply retroactively, then I’d might be okay with it.
Oh yeah, that’s definitely a bad outcome, I agree. Thankfully retroactive laws seem to be much harder to pass.
I enjoy the notion that they would argue that undocumented immigrants are not subject to US law in the fashion that diplomats aren’t subject to US law, since that would effectively prevent anything except deportation as a punishment for crimes.
“Your children can’t be citizens, but you can murder with impunity until we ask you to leave”.Lol dont give them ideas. They could treat them as “Enemy Aliens”, putting them in guantanamo.
