this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
91 points (98.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2528 readers
839 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
simsymbiote@midwest.social
Type1@midwest.social
91
Trump asks Supreme Court to allow him to end birthright citizenship (edition.cnn.com)
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by neme@lemm.ee to c/usa@midwest.social
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] elbucho@lemmy.world 22 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

I'm really not sure what happens if the Supreme Court backs this cunt on this. It's very clearly stated in the 14th amendment that people born in the US are citizens: "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."

So obviously, a functional supreme court would immediately rule against him, since it's very clearly written in as an amendment to the constitution, and their job is to interpret the fucking constitution. But this is the exact polar opposite of a functional supreme court. It's a kangaroo court whose function, it seems, is telling the emperor that his clothes look fabulous.

If they're allowed to just interpret a thing that very clearly says one thing as saying something else... what is the remedy for that? I mean, other than a shit load of high velocity bullet deliveries, of course. It's not like the supreme court answers to any other body.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

War. The alternative is a civil war.

[–] elbucho@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

I mean, that's pretty much covered under the whole "other than a shit load of high velocity bullet deliveries" bit, right?

[–] PineRune@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

But their parents are ee-lee-gulls!

That means they are "subject of the jurisdiction thereof." If they weren't subject to the jurisdiction, that would mean they are not here illegally.

[–] Rivalarrival 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

The kind of people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US include agents of a foreign government, such as diplomats... or invading soldiers.

That's the problem here: He is trying to put "immigrants" in the same category as "enemy combatants".

[–] elbucho@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Ok, I get that... but we're talking about people who were born here. How the fuck is he going to argue that babies are the foot soldiers of an invading force? Granted, I've met some unruly 2-year-olds... but I'm not worried about my ability to take them in a fight.

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Its not about the kids.

It's about whether the parents are owed due process in the courts. Its about whether the people taking action against immigrants will be judges, prosecutors, and cops, or soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

[–] elbucho@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I am not confused about the intent. The intent is pretty clear. What I'm confused about is the legal argument. The reason I am confused is that he is trying to eliminate birthright citizenship; that means that the defendants are all of the people born in the United States to two non-citizen parents. Which also means that his legal argument is that the act of being born under these circumstances on US land means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which puts you into the role of diplomat or enemy combatant. So unless he's trying to say that US-born babies of non-citizens are diplomats of their parents' respective countries... the only possible interpretation is that they are foot soldiers of some invading army.

Which brings me back to the point of showcasing how utterly ridiculous that argument is, and why I am confident that any functional supreme court would laugh the case out of the building.

[–] Rivalarrival 1 points 7 hours ago

You're not confused. You're thinking too deep.

This is the birthright citizenship clause:

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.

This is the entirety of what he cares about:

subject to the jurisdiction thereof

That's it. He doesn't care about any other part of the 14th amendment. He doesn't care whether the kids are citizens or not. Nothing about those kids is relevant at all. The ruling he wants is entirely on those five words.

Ruled in his favor, those five words give him everything he needs to start a shooting war on the southern border.

[–] tacobellhop@midwest.social 1 points 8 hours ago

He’s gonna argue that he’ll owe em one and probably issue them security detail forever

[–] natecox@programming.dev 22 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Immigrants in the country illegally, the theory goes, are subject to the jurisdiction of their native homeland.

Ok, if immigrants here illegally aren't subject to US jurisdiction, under whose authority are they being detained and deported?

[–] Rivalarrival 22 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The answer to that question is truly terrifying.

The answer is "The military".

He is trying to declare "immigrants" to be in the same category as "enemy combatants".

In a Red Dawn situation, the enemy invaders would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. They would not be owed 5th amendment rights to due process; they would not be owed 4th amendment rights against search and seizure. Any rights they have would be guaranteed by treaty and legislation, not the constitution.

By declaring them outside the jurisdiction of the US, he is saying their presence here is an act of war.

[–] JWBananas@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

And here I thought he was legitimizing sovereign citizens

[–] tacobellhop@midwest.social 1 points 8 hours ago

NATO is gonna come get Canadians from black sites is my guess how this plays out

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 17 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Wouldn't that invalidate himself as a citizen? Because his parents were immigrants that birthed that piece of human shit from a rotten pile of garbage that is his mother's womb.

[–] burkybang@lemmy.world 14 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I don't like him either, but I also prefer accurate information.

I believe this is only applicable to people born to illegal immigrants.

According to Wikipedia, his mother became a US citizen in 1942, and he was born in 1946, so this wouldn’t have applied to him.

I'm interested to hear other thoughts about this that I may not have considered.

[–] uuldika@lemmy.ml 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

if neither parent is a US citizen or permanent resident, the child wouldn't have US citizenship by birth. notably, Kamala Harris would have been ineligible for the Presidency under this rule, since her parents were on student visas when she was born. (though the Heritage Foundation maintains they wouldn't retroactively strip citizenship but still... yikes.)

also, the issue before the Court concerns a TRO blocking implementation of the policy change. they're asking for the Court to rule that TROs must apply only to named plaintiffs. that's a separate issue from the legality of the EO itself, but it's actually scarier, since it would neuter the lower courts' last meaningful check on the Executive's power.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

Stephen Miller has indeed broached the topic of denaturalizing citizens

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4992787-trump-deportation-plan-immigration/

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 23 hours ago

Fucking asshole.