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.

181 points

Start with musk or stfu

permalink
report
reply
47 points

Or barron

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-15 points

So you agree that he doesn’t have birthright status?

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points

He lied on his Visa papers and is literally an illegal immigrant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Only thing naturalized about him is his bank account which is what has kept him off the icehouse list

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Will be funny if they have a falling out and Trump rage enforces this against him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

That would literally be the single funniest thing that has ever happened in the history of mankind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
144 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
111 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
52 points

Start by getting rid of Ted Cruz, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Melania and all the Trump kids.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Ate you saying Malaria is a billionaire?

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

14A S3 wasn’t enforced, why should 14A S1 be?

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Couldn’t Trump just declare it that it’s an official act?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

DoJ: “My lord, is that… constitutional?”

SCOTUS: “I will make it constitutional”

permalink
report
parent
reply
94 points

i wish everyone would get rid of the assumption that the constitution will protect you

“that’s unconstitutional!!!” doesn’t mean jack shit anymore

permalink
report
reply
39 points

Every maga is downplaying his shit right now. “Not gonna happen” is what they all say.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Yeah just like roe overturn didn’t happen 🙄

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Ok ok, so maybe it will happen, but it surely won’t affect me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

They’ll deny it until it is happening and they feel safe to admit they believed him and wanted it to happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Yup. This exact shit has essentially destroyed my relationship with my parents. I can only ignore the repugnant politics for so long and up to a certain point before I have to reconsider if I want that hatred and bigotry in my life.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

I’ve noticed many Americans also talk about those ‘unalienable rights’ like it’s some law of nature. They’re not unalienable. Having rights is not a given. Ask many groups of people throughout history. You only have rights as long as others respect them. Where are your unalienable rights when you’re grabbed off the street in a black van and taken somewhere without anyone knowing? When your fellow citizens / your government decides you shouldn’t have them anymore? If rights were unalienable, why are they dependent on borders?

Sometimes I think people feel too safe. Otherwise they wouldn’t accept others losing their rights so easily. They still think they won’t/can’t lose their own.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The constitution is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules.

permalink
report
parent
reply
74 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

I’m the child of an immigrant and a native-born person. So does half of my citizenship get taken away?

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Decide which half of you body gets to stay

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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)

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
71 points

Meaning they will stay in the concentration camps until Trump’s Final Solution is implemented.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Slavery is much more economically viable than extermination. So, thank you capitalism, I think?

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

A “Fine ol’ solution” as they say in Florida

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I should invest in corrections, sounds like a goldmine

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

Hello. Australian here. Just ask our sadistic government. We do it all the time. Hint: It involves putting people in camps.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Little camps for homework. Where you can concentrate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They can’t do that unless Mexico agrees. They can’t just drive people down to San Diego and then shove them into Tijuana.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

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).

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You don’t even need to read the article. The title states quite clearly this is about citizenship not residence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yes they’ll have to revoke citizenship.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Which may be the end goal, use this as a wedge to convince their base that revoking citizenship may be justified in some cases.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

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.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/texas-land-trump-mass-deportation-b2650813.html

https://www.salon.com/2024/10/11/theyre-animals-vows-mass-deportation-under-law-used-to-justify-japanese-internment-camps/

Literal concentration camps are coming.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

He doesn’t plan on shit. Even this Supreme Court would tell him to fuck off.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Given that the Supreme Court ruled that all official (who decides?) acts are legal, I have no faith in them.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 22K

    Posts

  • 551K

    Comments