Trump Says He’ll Issue an Executive Order Ending Birthright Citizenship — a Constitutionally Protected Right
https://truthout.org/articles/trump-says-hell-issue-an-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship/Open linkView original on lemm.ee192
Comments54
3b. He loves having these fights because he can say 'BUT THE IMMIGRANTS' and MAGA, because they don't actually understand anything about the American constitution or law, will back him because they'll believe it's just a bunch of liberals protecting criminal aliens.
That's true, but I think a lot of Americans tend to think of the constitution as being more powerful than it actually is.
Just like any other set of rules, it mostly comes down to how these are interpreted. The constitution itself had no autonomy... it depends on everyone agreeing on a certain interpretation of the words as well as agreeing to enforce this interpretation.
I'm not saying that it is logical or consistent, but the wording "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." in the 14th amendment could have some VERY warped interpretations, if you really wanted to force it...
This feels like a Federalist Society test of an attack on the Constitution. If this works, and Trump can peel away Amendments, expect chaos. The 4th and 2nd will be taken early.
I'm surprised that the second would be even remotely considered. If the situation in the US itself isn't enough, I have a hard time seeing that happen. But, a fascist is a fascist, and the playbook is clear enough.
Their people will get to keep guns, but don't think queer people or immigrants will
Just wanted to point out, all members of the military and in public office take an oath to FIRST uphold and defend the constitution of the US, and then, to follow the presidents orders. If the president\president elect is passing policies or making edicts in violation of the constitution without an amendement first being passed by congress, then every elected official, and more importantly, all military officials, have the duty, right, and obligation to stop him and his co-conspirators, both foreign and domestic...
Nothing is sacred for them, and their words are only used to get what they want now.
The SCOTUS is stacked in Trump's favor. He's been openly racist, mysoginist and he is a rapist, and he won the presidency.
Don't hold your breath on anything that makes sense because the next year will be everything but normal.
Conservatives will shit and clean their ass with the constitution if that mean they can hurt people they don't like
If/when they start breaking the constitution, I'm going to make popcorn because I'm in Canada and it's about to pop off.
If there's ever a time or place to take up arms it's when the Constitution is being stomped on. If none of you stand up and take action at that point, I will be shocked, shocked I say!
I realize he's going to be president, but "Trump says" isnt news anymore. Man talks a lot of shit. I'll start to care when the "Trump does" is in the headline.
Give it about 6 weeks...
I LOVE the Constitution!*
*When it's used to DEFEND CHILD KILLERS!
He's never said that, as far as I'm aware. He has, however, overtly expressed interest in "suspending the Constitution".
the constitution is just a flimsy piece of paper if nobody decides to enforce it
his string-pullers want this scotus to rule against the inevitable lawsuits.
I doubt he cares about actually ending birthright citizenship, he cares about being seen to be ending it. He's all about image, the worse the better. If the courts prevent it, or a later administration undoes his order, that's their problem, not his.
I'd love to see the relevant agencies simply ignore his unlawful order. Just let him sit there and stomp around like a toddler demanding but with nobody listening rather than treat it as valid with a lawsuit response.
And I'd like to be the King of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.
You have waaaaay more confidence in these agencies than I do.
The reality is, with enough pressure even 'independent' heads of agencies can be replaced. Nobody wants to be in the firing line and the focus of Trump (and his followers) rage.
Well I only said like to, not expect to.
I would expect someone to file a suit to block it, but just ignoring him I suspect would cause him to absolutely lose his shit.
Dictators want to dictate. Fuck the rules.
Yes this is just noise, but if it were not, would this mean that all individuals born after adoption have to take citizenship exams and be naturalized? Even Bubba who's family has been here since the French owned Louisiana?
Or is this a "grandfather clause" kinda thing?
So if someone expects to be put in a camp what's the best way to move thier savings?
I thought jewelery but I recall the jews had everything taken even teeth. I don't know much about American history but I know the Japanese were not treated well either during ww2. Pretty sure many lost all thier stuff.
Only thing I can't think of is bury some gold like in Russian doll.
Long term money goes offshore short term money stays liquid and if you have people you trust it with as things look to be getting worse you may decide to transfer it to them.
The main goal is to deny value without fucking yourself over. And in that vein if you have significant gold in this country get it out or if you must bury it do so without your phone or car
Now is the time to talk to a money person
I think you can assume that anything on your person will be taken. Funds and property with a clear paper trail may or may not be grabbed. There are various ways to keep money anonymously, like numbered bank accounts and cryptocurrencies, but they are not simple or without their problems.
If you have anyone you really trust, who is not likely to also end up in a camp, you might consider transferring everything to them. It would be difficult for the government to take anything that does not actually belong to you.
Ideally, I would consult with both a lawyer and a financial consultant.
buy an asset yeah Bitcoin or gold make your bet I guess.
IIRC, birthright citizenship isn't quite as cut and dried as it seems. My ex-spouse worked in a passport office, and there are some weird rules about things like how many years you have to have lived in the US depending on exactly where you were born and to which parents. I don't remember all of them, but it's not quite as cut-and-dried as "you're a US citizen if you were born in the US"; you also have to be subject to US jurisdiction. So if you're born in the US, but are raised entirely outside of the US, IIRC you might not be a citizen.
Fascists used Ignore Civil Rights
Try knowing what words mean before you use them.
God, dumb people are the worst. Some fuckers can't even Google.
Nice rebuttal
Not every country gives citizenship to people born there.
There are two basic models:
In some countries you can be a 3rd or 4th generation resident but not have citizenship if none of your ancestors had citizenship.
In other countries you can be a citizen even if neither you nor any of your parents or grandparents actually lived in the country, but you have an ancestor who did.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
Again - I don't believe that's correct. It a pregnant woman went into labor prematurely while vacationing in the US, and had a baby here, I don't believe that child would be a US citizen.
Wow why would you so confidently lie about this?
Why pretend like our rights don't exist?
Is there some kind of consent you are trying to manufacture?
The exact terms of birthright citizenship are laid out in the 8 U.S.C. § 1401; the way that this is interpreted is up to courts.
According to US statute, if Barack Obama had been born outside of the US (he was born in Hawai'i) to his American mother while she was not married to his Kenyan father (...and they were married at the time he was born) , he still would have been a natural born citizen according to 8 U.S.C. § 1409.c, because she was both a citizen and had resided in the US for at least one year.
Rights are rarely absolute, or nearly as cut and dry as people claim. For instance, the freedom of the press has been interpreted to not include material that is obscene. Freedom of peaceable assembly requires that you pay a fee and get a permit. The right to keep and bear arms has been determined to not include things like buying surface-to-air missiles from Victor Bout. Up until Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), despite the 6th amendment saying that you have the right to "have the Assistance of Counsel for [your] defence [sic]", indigent suspects were not provided with an attorney (...and what use is and enumerated right if you lack the ability to exercise the right?). Under fairly recent court rulings, you must explicitly invoke your 5th amendment right to remain silent; simply being silent is insufficient.
Do I think that Trump is going to be able to revoke the citizenship of people that were born here to undocumented immigrants? No. Do I want him to? Also no. Do I want to see his mass deportations blow up in his face and implode the economy? Oh yeah, definitely. I want people--Trump MAGAts--to see just how much we rely on the underpaid labor of the undocumented people in this country for the necessities of life.
What you fail to understand is you acting like this right is revokable manufacturers consent for revoking rights.
If you were smart you wouldn't play devil's advocate, you wouldn't help the devil
It's called steel-manning, and it's an important way of testing your own claims. You want to make the best possible argument for you opponen't beliefs, and then be ready with a strong counterargument. ...Which does assume good-faith, rational disagreement.
At this point if you don't want to acknowledge that arguing in bad faith is a bad thing to do then you have already chosen your side.
Of course it's a bad thing. But I want my side to work in good faith rather than assuming that everything they disagree with is bad faith. I don't want to be associated with ppl that are also acting largely in bad faith; I want to be better than that.
I don't think that birthright citizenship for the children of people not in the USA legally is as clearly established in the Constitution as some people say.
Read the 14th amendment.
Here's section 1 in case anyone wants to read it.
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.
Inb4 they use that "without due process of law" line to deport people with a judge's nod
I have read the 14th amendment, and so have the people arguing against birthright citizenship as it exists now. Here's what they have to say. Some excerpts:
Presumably you disagree with the Heritage Foundation (I'm quite surprised to find myself agreeing with them here) but they are in fact well-informed about the text of the Constitution, its history, and relevant case law.
Edit: Does tagging people like this work? I don't want to post the same reply multiple times.
/u/[email protected]
/u/[email protected]
/u/_[email protected]
That's my point. These are the guys who wrote the plan to end birthright citizenship and "read the 14th amendment" doesn't go very far against them because they have. Neither does "the meaning of the 14th amendment is obvious" because they're constitutional lawyers and they're saying it isn't. They may still very well be wrong, but they aren't "ha ha, you haven't even heard of the constitution" wrong.
Fourteenth Amendment, 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.
What's unclear about this to you?
Personally I think it's clear but this little clause leaves enough wiggle room for the current supreme court to effectively end it. Again I want to stress that I think it's ridiculous, but legal reasoning being extremely flimsy hasn't stopped them yet. Listen to a few five to four podcast episodes and you'll find flimsier.
Flood v Kuhn might be the dumbest if not the most egregious decision. Basically professional baseball is immune to antitrust law because ... one of the justices really liked it?
https://shows.acast.com/5-4-premium/episodes/60a43606b9651700192ddc69
Castle Rock v Gonzalez. Content warning, the circumstances of the case are dark. Basically even if a state law explicitly directs a police officer to protect someone, said officer can just not. No reason required. Because of tradition or some shit
https://shows.acast.com/5-4-premium/episodes/60a43606b9651700192ddc7d
To say nothing of cases like Buck v Bell, Plessy v Ferguson, etc.
It will be interesting (and terrifying) to see what kind of legal knots they tie themselves into to argue that immigrants are not subject to the law when it comes to protections but are subject to the law when it comes to enforcement.
Everyone down voting this clearly hasn't read the 14th amendment and thought about all the ways you could interpret "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
I'm not saying I agree with it, it's easy to see how you could intentionally try to spin that to mean essentially "...under the legal jurisdiction thereof..."
And who ultimately decides what the "correct" interpretation is? Not you or me...it's the Supreme Court