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.

  • dunidane@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Birthright. If you are born here, you are a citizen. That’s what they are talkin1g about.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

    • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.