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.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    1 day ago

    states should arrest border patrol agents attempting this.

    Democrats should threaten to charge anyone attempting this of human trafficking.

    • GuitarSon2024@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      21 hours ago

      Except for the liberal bubbles in Houston and Dallas, I’m pretty sure most Texans are pretty gung-ho in favor of this and will be giving border patrol agents free lunches. No ICE, DHS, or Border Patrol agents will be getting arrest by the southern states

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        You’re forgetting Arizona and California. Arizona’s Blue Wave is particularly left leaning too…

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        supposing democrats wake up a little (fat chance) federal democrats should say that they will ensure any person that attempts to act outaside the guardrails of the constitution will be charged with crimes when they regain power.

    • TammyTobacco@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I think recent events have shown Democrats are incapable of helping anybody but themselves. And even then they’re shit.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The 14th amendment says:

      “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

      The court has read that as: “All persons born” OR " naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

      Trump wants it to read: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "

      His take: Anchor babies are not “Subject to the jurisdiction” and thus are not citizens.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 hours ago

        All we have to do is ask what happens to a “migrant” baby left at a fire house.

        Straight to the state care system?

        Oh wow.

      • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        That doesn’t clear too much for me. Are you saying that everybody needs to go through the citizenship process and take the citizenship test? I’m not sure what the part about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means exactly.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 hours ago

      You can be a natural born citizen either by being here when born or by being born to a US citizen. The order challenges the former.

      I saw people accurately predict that they would hang such an order on the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” portion. The argument was predicted to be that a mother on US soil unlawfully is excluded by that clause (though they are clearly subject to the jurisdiction despite being unlawful, this was the guess).

      They are trying to push it even further by claiming people here legally also don’t get the right, and there’s not even a hint of rationalization to claim that somehow people legally here are not “subject to the jurisdiction”.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        If pregnant women from other countries aren’t under the jurisdiction of the United States I’ve got an idea for the perfect crime

    • SoftTeeth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Yes if you aren’t Native American, your family probably gained citizenship through birthright.

    • Aggravationstation@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      Right now just being born on US soil automatically makes you a US citizen, regardless of if your parents are or not. It works that way in a lot of countries. I knew a guy in school who’s parents are both British, his mother started giving birth to him on a plane so they did an emergency landing in Cyprus. Due to being born there he has both British and Cypriot citizenship.

      This change would stop that happening in the US. Your parents would have to be citizens for you to become one as soon as you’re born.

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    19 hours ago

    It’s almost like the vow he made to protect the constitution just yesterday was completely empty and meaningless.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I noticed a trend with Trump’s executive order spree yesterday - almost all of them are just fluff or red meat for the base that don’t have any effect on anything, like the one defining genders, and others are so blatantly unconstitutional that they will be challenged and most likely never implemented, like the one in question terminating birthright citizenship - it’s guaranteed to go before the courts and get struck down. Doing something like that would require an constitutional amendment.

    He’s counting on the goldfish brain base to give him credit for doing these wacky things and then not pay attention three weeks from now when an ACLU lawsuit essentially puts the order in limbo before it dies in front of a judge.

    Trump might as well sign an executive order that declares himself Emperor of the Moon and Supreme Chancellor of Outer Space, it’ll have about the same amount of impact as this first round of executive orders will.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Trump might as well sign an executive order that declares himself Emperor of the Moon and Supreme Chancellor of Outer Space, it’ll have about the same amount of impact as this first round of executive orders will.

      Look, not to call you out or anything, but the impact of these edicts (however nonsensical) is radically different now that he’s in office.

      The problem isn’t the legitimacy or legality of any such order, it’s the veracity and scope to which they are carried out regardless of those facts. He just pardoned the Jan 6th insurrectionists. Now, people that are handed off-the-wall, yet much more clear, orders from the White House can now go on thinking that illegal activity pursued in the name of said order will be washed away. So, stuff like this will cause damage to be done well before any courts can intervene, constitutionality be damned.

      As a bonus, this adds culpability to the actions of his subordinates. Step in line or lose your job. Fail me after committing a crime and you go straight to prison. This is an organized crime tactic to keep shady people in line.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        I understand that. What I’m hoping is that the rest of the members of government will remember that Trump cannot do it without them. All an executive order really is, at it’s core, is direction for how federal agencies should conduct their business. None of it circumvents congress or the courts. Yes, I know, those two branches of government aren’t on our side either, but at the very least I expect them to be slimy enough to know when they have leverage and use it to their advantage - stall out or kill legislation before it has a chance to become anything more than just an executive order full of hot air if for no reason other than to extract concessions from Trump. It all adds up.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          16 hours ago

          None of it circumvents congress or the courts.

          If the SCOTUS thinks it should, then it will. Which they will, since they are beholden to Donold.

      • DukeHawthorne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        17 hours ago

        That’s the key. With these ECs and the pardons, Trump’s lackies are free to do whatever they want, using these as an excuse. If anything does happen to them, Trump made it clear he’ll pardon them. and if Trump is scrutinized, he’s got the SC on his side who just gave the president unlimited power. And if push comes to shove, he’ll just pardon himself.

        There is literally nothing holding him accountable anymore. Nothing and no one.

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      16 hours ago

      it’s guaranteed to go before the courts and get struck down. Doing something like that would require an constitutional amendment.

      lolwut?

      With this SCOTUS, they will pluck the case out of the line, before it goes down any circuit, and they will issue a ruling declaring it constitutional.

      That’s what happens when you have a bought-and-paid-for SCOTUS.

      • ECB@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        14 hours ago

        They’ll probably strike down one or two of them just so they can claim “look, we’re still independent!!”

        Of course the ones to get struck down have already been agreed upon

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      t’s guaranteed to go before the courts and get struck down

      If only trump controlled the highest court in all the land. A “supreme” court, if you will.

      That said, trump and his allies have been pretty open that the idea is to spam EOs to demoralize people and distract them from what they are really doing. And, in this case, Legal Eagle (and Liz Dye) kind of already explained it:

      The idea will be to declare a border crisis (done) to give the potus wider reaching powers. Same with declaring Mexican cartels as terrorists (they kind of are, but not to us). The combination of those mean they can invade sanctuary cities under “national security” excuses and can argue that illegal immigrants are enemy combatants which DO have a carve out.

      The “quirk” of Kamala no longer being a citizen because her parents were here under student (?) visas MIGHT get struck down. But the real goal of populating labor camps with brown people is right on track.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        17 hours ago

        If Trump actually controlled the Supreme Court, we never would have had a president Biden. The Supreme Court mainly cares about increasing their own power. They’d never allow the office of the president to have the power to overturn the constitution by fiat.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          They literally ruled that anything Trump does is an official act, and he cannot be charged for it. And, he already has self-pardon, so any “loophole” the SCOTUS comes up with, he just pardons himself.

          And, he sends men with guns, under an official act, to get rid of the SCOTUS justices that disagreed with him… And he will select new ones.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          17 hours ago

          trump has a ruling from the supreme court that he can’t be punished for anything that he considers an “official act”. And the entire point of “stop the steal” and “stall for time” was to get the 2020 election up in front of the supreme court. Instead, pence showed a backbone for the only time in his life and it became a violent insurrection attempt instead.

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    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.

    • watson387@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Yeah, if they let him start dictating constitutional amendments by executive order there definitely won’t be a next election.

    • Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I don’t think that’s a problem. Even if they didn’t plan to begin their dictatorship now, Biden had immunity and didn’t do a goddamn thing with it. Democrats don’t do anything.

      • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        POTUS immunity wasn’t a blanket grant of absolute power. It was just the same BS immunity that cops get for what they do as cops.

          • DomeGuy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Close to it, maybe, but police can’t do a whole bunch of things. Like hold you forever without trial, or arbitrarily rape people with no consequences. Or shoot judges whose rulings they don’t like

            What they get away with is outrageous, but it’s not quite "absolute power "

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Democrat president can just use that to nullify the 2nd Amendment

      Can, but won’t, because that would be “going low” and “we aren’t like them”

      You know, like cowardly dipshits

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      16 hours ago

      the next Democrat president

      lol, cute of you to think there will be a “next election”.

    • phughes@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      21 hours ago

      next Democrat president

      LOL. Fascism is here. There will never be another Democrat president.

      • quixote84@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Fascism is here in part because Democrat presidents aren’t actually on a different team.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Trying to argue “both sides” on an article about a Republican trying to overturn the Constitution with an executive order has got to be embarrassing.

          • ubergeek@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            16 hours ago

            You mean like an article on the Dems in congress overturning the US Constitution via votes?

        • phughes@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          20 hours ago

          I get the impression is that in your mind there are only two teams: people who agree with you 100% and everyone else.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Ah the both parties are the same guy. Always here, never correct, never helpful.

    • Critical_Thinker@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Doesn’t work because the legal body is republican controlled. Only republican choices are above the law.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I don’t even understand what this will mean. Why does the donvict care so much about this?

    Would this mean that while Elon was here illegally and if he had kids with someone with the same status, his kids would not be citizens?

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Hurt brown ppl. Member when they ended public pool segregation? Instead of letting their kids swim with black kids the white ppl closed the pools instead.

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Why does the donvict care so much about this?

      Conservatives hate foreigners, and love watching them get kicked in the face. This is porn for his base.

      • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        Who they consider foreign is also highly subjective. If a German tourist who barely speaks English and has the thickest accent you’ve heard is accidentally mistaken for an immigrant, he will be seen as more American than that Hispanic guy whose family were here before the 20th century.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    12 hours ago

    “It’s ridiculous, we’re the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know, and it’s just absolutely ridiculous. We think we have really good grounds. People have wanted to do this for decades.”

    Canada has birthright citizenship.

    Trump is ignorant and Trump is stupid.

    Congratulations, America, you elected a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, serial sexual assaulter and harasser, serial adulterer, serial fraudster, pathological liar, lifelong con man, and wannabe dictator but more importantly you elected a fucking idiot.

    • capital_sniff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That and Trump made at least three different attempts (that we know of) to remain in office last time. Fake electors, find those Georgia votes, and an actual attack on the Capitol. The GOP and her voters then spent four years squawking about election security and fraud. Their jackass right wing media spent time revamping white replacement theory… so they have to on some level understand democracy and voting.

      So what do the big on the rule of law real Americans do? They vote for the only candidate that tried to disenfranchise a whole shit ton of American voters. It is absolutely wild that so many domesticated standard Americans failed this very very basic test.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    105
    ·
    23 hours ago

    with critics calling it unconstitutional.

    You don’t need to be a critic to call it unconstitutional. It is, as it contradicts an Amendment.

  • Cool_Name@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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?

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Even then, they’ll likely rig the 2026 elections, to get a supermajority, so they can just replace the constitution with one that is 100% compatible with christofascism.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Unless they completely throw out the Constitution they still have to let the states run elections. And the States generally aren’t interested in rigging their elections.

    • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      23 hours ago

      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.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      ·
      1 day ago

      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?

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I suspect that was probably not as much on their mind as the prospect of a US territory temporarily occupied by a foreign military. I fully anticipated that they would attempt this comparison (despite clearly subjecting illegal immigrants to the jurisdiction). Even if it is incorrect, I could at least see them making that attempt.

        I’m surprised that they are trying to extend this to include people legally in the US, with every legal basis to be here and no whiff of any vaguely dubious relationship with jurisdiction…

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        20 hours ago

        The answer there is easy and horrifying. Since they’re “not subject to” the law of the US, you can basically declare them outlaws. The od-school use of the term, basically meaning “this person exists outside of legal sight, so anything that happens to them is entirely legal because they don’t exist as a legal entity in our sight.”

        The end game is open season on anyone who “looks illegal”.

    • credo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            22 hours ago

            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.

            • credo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              22 hours ago

              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.

      • nutcase2690@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        I was worried about this and had to check, the executive order text has a section which states it only applies to those born 30 days after the signing of the EO. Who knows what the fuck the supreme court will extrapolate that to, though.

    • thomas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

  • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Love how he swore an oath to uphold the constitution then a few hours later signs and executive order that goes against it

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Just like he has one executive order for energy production and another to pause offshore wind farm leases