The whole MAGA movement can be described as people who did not get the point in Starship Troopers.

Jus soli (birthright citizenship based on where you are born) is not that common to be fair. I don't think it's the standard in Europe for example. You have to reside (legally) in a country for a certain number of years AND pay taxes for them to be eligible to get citinzenship

Imagine if only old people ran the government... What a nightmare that would be.... Ah fuck.

It's not guaranteed, but service does help get citizenship: https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-military-service

"What next President?" - Trump, probably

the Trump administration says

“Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” the filing says. “Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of unspecified individuals who are ‘not before the court nor identified by the court.’”

While totally ignoring the fact that reason why there are so many injunctions is Trump keeps ignoring laws and the Constitution. An immediate injunction is entirely appropriate in that case.

Besides, it's not like the lower court judge issues the injunction and that's the end of the story. There is still litigation, and everything can get appealed. Limiting the scope of those injunctions will only serve to have Trump selectively ignore the Constitution for states what like what he is doing, which is not how it's supposed to work at all.

It was made at a time when the victors of the civil war realized that racist loosers would try to deny citizenship to former slaves.

It's the 14th Amendment. If SCOTUS tries to find some bullshit reason it doesn't mean what it clearly says, then we can freely ignore anything they say.

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.

hey Gemini: Is this remark on the idea of removing birthright citizenship in the USA reasonable? If so why? If not why?

The remark presents a perspective on birthright citizenship that is not widely accepted by economists or demographers, and it contains several flawed assumptions and arguments. Here's a breakdown: Points of Contention:

• Historical Context:
  • While it's true the 14th Amendment, which established birthright citizenship, was ratified after the Civil War, its primary purpose was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and ensure their equal protection under the law. It wasn't solely about increasing the population for economic growth.
  • The idea that the US population was "significantly smaller and wanted to grow" is too simplistic. Population growth has always been a complex issue, influenced by various social, economic, and political factors.
• "Progress is ending/slowing down":
  • The claim that "progress is ending/slowing down" is subjective and debatable. While some sectors may experience slowdowns, others, like technology, continue to advance. Economic cycles also have periods of growth and slowdown.
  • Economic growth is not ending.
• "Demand for human labor is declining":
  • While automation and technological advancements are changing the nature of work, they are not necessarily eliminating the overall demand for human labor. They are shifting the demand towards different skill sets.
  • There is still a very large demand for human labor, but the type of labor demanded is shifting.
• "A shrinking population is a good thing":
  • A shrinking population can have severe economic consequences, including:
    • A smaller workforce, leading to labor shortages.
    • A reduced tax base, making it harder to fund social programs.
    • Slower economic growth.
    • An aging population, which puts strains on social security and healthcare systems.
  • The concept that a shrinking population is universally "good" is not supported by mainstream economic thought.
• "Immigration is a bad thing":
  • Immigration has historically played a vital role in the US economy, providing a source of labor, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
  • Immigrants often fill labor shortages in key sectors and contribute to economic growth.
  • Immigration is a very complex issue, and to state that it is a bad thing is a gross over simplification.
• "Birthrate should drop lower to reduce the supply of workforce, keep up wages":
  • While it's true that a tighter labor market can lead to higher wages, artificially suppressing the birthrate has long-term negative consequences, as mentioned earlier.
  • Relying solely on a declining birthrate to manage wage levels is an unsustainable and ethically questionable approach.
  • A declining birthrate can have major negative impacts on social security systems. In summary: The remark presents a simplistic and flawed view of economics, demographics, and history. It relies on generalizations and ignores the complex interplay of factors that influence population, labor markets, and economic growth.

Cool. Get a 2/3 majority in Congress to agree and have 3/4 of states ratify then…