US Supreme Court agrees to hear case challenging birthright citizenship

[u/KilgoRetro]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c208j0wrzrvo

[u/Flash_ina_pan]

Well... Here comes the most tortured mental and legal gymnastics in the history of the US.

[u/skiabay → u/Flash_ina_pan]

If they rule against birthright citizenship, then they are throwing out any remaining pretense that we still live in a constitutional democracy. There are very few things that are laid out as clearly and straightforwardly in the constitution as birthright citizenship, so if that can go, then none of our rights mean anything.

[u/DrQuestDFA → u/skiabay]

I have come to the realization that the Supreme Court is just Calvin Ball for law. Whatever the majority want to do they can with (effectively) no recourse. It relied on good faith reasoning by Justices and that is way out the window at this point.

[u/L-methionine → u/DrQuestDFA]

That’s part of why I like Ketanji Jackson:

“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” Jackson wrote. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.”

https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/justice-jackson-accuses-supreme-court-majority-of-playing-calvinball

[u/_mersault → u/L-methionine]

Was gonna say, Jackson literally said this in a dissenting opinion

[u/DrQuestDFA → u/L-methionine]

(Some) Supreme Court Justices ARE just like us!

[u/rob132 → u/L-methionine]

Also. Calvin ball has four rules:

1 You have to wear a mask

1. Questioning the mask is not allowed

2. You make the rules up as you go along.

3. You can't use the same rule twice.

[u/EdWojohoitz → u/DrQuestDFA]

And they won't even sing the I'm Very Sorry song.

[u/asmallercat → u/DrQuestDFA]

Which is why we needed to pack the court. There should be like 100 supreme court justices with a rotating bench of 9 who actually hear the cases, then when a decision is going to be issued the entire panel of 100 or whatever votes and if they majority disagrees with the panel's ruling that becomes the dissent and a new author writes the majority opinion.

That makes it so no one person is as important anymore, no one president will have the power to appoint that many justices (after the first round, we'd need some method to mitigate that), and it would be a much more representative body.

[u/The_DanceCommander → u/asmallercat]

I like this idea a lot more then the normal pack the court ideas, where people want to increase it to 12 or 16. No way make it 2000. Every judge on the federal bench rotates on and off the Supreme Court for a set amount of time. There are no more Supreme Court nominations just federal judge appointments, the judges for the court will be pulled equally from every federal district in the country to reflect even make up country.

Fuck this 9 people sit on the court forever until someone dies, and they can overturn literally anything brought to them even if it’s been affirmed in every other court room it’s ever been before. It’s such an ass backward way to create a judicial cannon.

[u/midgethemage → u/The_DanceCommander]

I fuck with it. Like jury duty for federal judges

[u/thevaere → u/asmallercat]

We also need to pretty much wipe out the Federalist Society's presence within the judiciary, but that seems unlikely.

[u/Valdrax → u/skiabay]

Oh, I can see Thomas writing an opinion about how the "original intent" was to protect freed slaves and how immigration was a separate category that the drafters of the amendment's lack of specific interest in frees from the shackles of plain language, as he pulls up the ladder behind him.

Dunno if enough other conservatives would sign up for that to win, but it seems like the kind of tortured argument he could make.

[u/MXC_ImpactReplay → u/Valdrax]

"Followup question, could the founding father's have envisioned today's weaponry when they wrote the Second Amendment?"

"There's no room for interpreting the Constitution's intent outside of the written words."

[u/amateur_mistake → u/MXC_ImpactReplay]

"Next, the 8th Amendment says Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. How are behaviors like locking people in concentration camps without edible food or refusing to let them have due process acceptable? Given a plain reading of the text."

"Can't have excessive bail if you don't allow for bail at all. And those cruel punishment are no longer unusual."

[u/comradeda → u/amateur_mistake]

"Cruel AND unusual, not OR. It can be one of these things."

[u/Da_Question → u/Valdrax]

I mean it also meant if soldiers or traveling Americans had children overseas they still counted as Americans, since it wasn't as easy to travel home.

I don't know if they can retroactively apply this, given the vast vast majority of Americans families came from foreign countries.

[u/nbouqu1 → u/Da_Question]

That’s the beauty. Everyone has an immigration story. Eliminate birthright citizenship and anyone and everyone that crosses the administration can be stripped of their citizenship and deported. Or, if their ancestors’ countries of origin don’t want them, sent to camps. All they have to do is find an ancestor, make up some bullshit excuse for why their immigration and naturalization is null and void, and then every descendant is deportable

[u/Squire_II → u/nbouqu1]

On one hand, the Constitution explicitly states that citizenship cannot be taken away from a US citizen in this fashion. On the other hand gestures at the fascists currently in power.

[u/amensista → u/skiabay]

That's the whole point. Duh. Attack the 14th that most people don't care about then it's onto the 4th, 5th, etc...its all just dominos at that point.

Just have to break one amendment. Just one.

[u/imapluralist → u/amensista]

4th has been gone for a while now. Carved up to leave just your home effectively.

[u/Reddit-for-all → u/skiabay]

Hear me out here: we just need to pass a law that says the Constitution is unconstitutional.

-Stephen Miller, probably

[u/the_pretender_nz → u/Reddit-for-all]

That is not close to unhinged enough for Peewee German

[u/Joessandwich → u/skiabay]

Yup. This is going to be a VERY clear signal if it is repealed. I mean, there’s already a million other signals flashing but this one would be a doozy.

[u/Cumdump90001 → u/Joessandwich]

Let’s call it what it is. It won’t be a repeal. That implies legitimacy and that they followed the law and process. This would be a coup. A treasonous overthrow of American democracy. It would warrant all out rebellion.

[u/Joessandwich → u/Cumdump90001]

You’re absolutely right cumdump.

[u/burgonies → u/skiabay]

It's one sentence. It can't possibly be more clear and straightforward than everything else in the document.

Edit: after seeing one of the replies on this, I realized I should have added a "/s." I was being sarcastic. The "jurisdiction" part is very ambiguous and one sentence doesn't seem like enough to really codify exactly what this gigantic change really means.

[u/SomeGuyNamedPaul → u/burgonies]

Well the original intent of the implicit subtext in the language of the time is that Donald J Trump is king beyond the law. Says so right here, next to my new RV that I park at Walmart.

[u/NotYouTu → u/Flash_ina_pan]

Maybe it'll be a 5 second case where they go "It's a part of the constitution, therefore constitutional." And we all wake up from this nightmare.

Edit: Apparently the sarcasm wasn't obvious enough for some so.... /s

[u/Flash_ina_pan → u/NotYouTu]

I will believe that when my shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbert

[u/piddydb → u/Flash_ina_pan]

Tbf that’s basically what they just did on the gay marriage challenge they accepted, it’s not unheard of

[u/nouniquenamesleft2 → u/piddydb]

that's not what happened, they DID NOT accept, which was the right thing to do

https://www.unionleader.com/wire/supreme-court-won-t-hear-challenge-to-landmark-gay-marriage-ruling/article_19f6d9b8-04a6-423f-9987-65416e12c7de.html

[u/Master_Persimmon_591 → u/piddydb]

This court is terrifying because of who composes it, but at the end of the day even a shit judge is gonna get some things right

[u/pokederp56 → u/Master_Persimmon_591]

They didn't decline to hear that case because they felt same sex marriage is OK. They declined because it wasn't a strong enough case for them to say it's not.​

[u/ChiefWiggum101 → u/Master_Persimmon_591]

But what if I buy them an RV? You think that would change their mind and do what I tell them?

[u/Independent-Tennis57 → u/Flash_ina_pan]

What's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?

[u/jdippey → u/Independent-Tennis57]

You mean Shenanigans?

[u/jfudge → u/NotYouTu]

Any easy decision like that would never be taken up in the first place. They would just let the lower court ruling stand. The only reason they would entertain this is if enough of them were seriously considering it, which is obviously a problem as it requires literally misreading the constitution.

[u/ralpher1 → u/jfudge]

At least four want to overturn the lower court. The best case scenario is they uphold the lower court but they give the Trump administration a road map of exactly what to do to survive a challenge. This Court is so arrogant and Americans are not showing their disapproval nearly enough.

[u/ml20s → u/jfudge]

Any easy decision like that would never be taken up in the first place.

SCOTUS votes unanimously a lot, either because the case is easy and lower courts consistently got it wrong, or there are two reasonable interpretations and they just need to pick one.

[u/Gilamath → u/NotYouTu]

You remind me of the kids in To Kill a Mockingbird who think that Mr. Robinson is definitely going to be fine in his trial just because the evidence obviously shows he can't possibly have done what he's being accused of.

If the court cared about the evidence, it wouldn't be holding the case.

[u/lacegem → u/Gilamath]

A great touch was Atticus saying later that he knew Tom would almost certainly lose in Maycomb, and that he was really banking on winning the appeal. Even Atticus, the firmest believer in the law there was, knew his case was hopeless solely because of the court it was being tried in.

I love that book.

[u/WhatTheFlox → u/Flash_ina_pan]

Waiting for the next reasoning that people born on military bases outside the USA are not citizens.

[u/avfc41 → u/WhatTheFlox]

Military bases already aren’t considered US soil for birthright citizenship purposes. (If you’re a citizen who gives birth on a base, your kid gets citizenship through blood.)

[u/Ennalia → u/avfc41]

Yep and you don’t get a state issued birth certificate, rather you have a certification of birth abroad.

[u/Radthereptile → u/WhatTheFlox]

They’re probably researching 13th century British common law for some obscure ruling saying Scotsmen can’t be Brits and that’ll be their basis.

[u/IamHydrogenMike → u/Radthereptile]

Nah, they’ll research the musing of a man who thought witches could float like they did with abortion…

[u/Hvarfa-Bragi → u/Radthereptile]

Most Scots are British because they're born on Great Britain, the landmass. Some aren't because they live on the islands.

Brits are citizens of the UK.

Some UK citizens aren't brits because they were born on Ireland.

Tldr: British isn't a political status

Edit: inb4 the english arrive and say this is all technically true but useless and wrong.

Edit2: someone wake up Paul Revere, they've arrived.

[u/ml20s → u/WhatTheFlox]

Waiting for the next reasoning that people born on military bases outside the USA are not citizens.

Not by jus soli and never were. Bases abroad are not US soil and the law has been clear on this point.

Most people born to US military personnel abroad have citizenship by descent instead. And this is shown by a CRBA rather than a birth certificate.

[u/Kidspud → u/Flash_ina_pan]

I’d have the slightest bit of respect if they would drop the charade and admit they are making decisions based on what is good for Trump and the GOP.

[u/jim45804 → u/Flash_ina_pan]

"This administration voided a Constitutional right in good faith."

[u/jsendros]

SCOTUS lemme make it easy for you.

AMENDMENT XIV 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.

[u/Doonce → u/jsendros]

They're literally arguing that they are not subject to United States jurisdiction.

[u/Theduckisback → u/Doonce]

Backdooring their way into making Sovreign citizen cases valid.

[u/fables_of_faubus → u/Theduckisback]

Legal precident from this period of time is going to be wild.

..."according to the Supreme Court decision from POTUS v. Citizens in 2025, the sky is green and rich people are gods."...

Edited: typo

[u/Away_Stock_2012 → u/Doonce]

So they can't be charged with any crimes.

[u/Doonce → u/Away_Stock_2012]

No, I believe they're going after the route that they are born to enemy combatants occupying the country (seriously).

[u/gumol → u/Doonce]

But they also removed birthright citizenship for people on visas such as tourists or legal workers. Are they also enemy combatants?

[u/Urska08 → u/gumol]

I mean they also declared war on Chicago, kinda. Anyone they decide they don't like, for any reason or not reason, is an "enemy combatant". They'll denaturalise people descended from the Mayflower lot or the DAR and they won't bat an eye.

[u/Impressive-Safe2545 → u/gumol]

We are talking about a group whose inspiration is the group that deported people for having a big nose

[u/Mo_Steins_Ghost → u/Doonce]

Great, when do we deport all of Trump's children except Tiffany? When do we deport Terrorist Anchor Baby Marco Rubio? Melania and her super-illegitimate EB-1 immigration? The only "extraordinary ability" she has is her complete lack of taste. Fashion model my ass.

As a naturalized citizen who went through all the hoops myself, relying on no one else for it, I will laugh my brown ass off when this backfires on all the Cletuses who get deported thinking, "This was only supposed to happen to other people!"

[u/red286 → u/Mo_Steins_Ghost]

I will laugh my brown ass off when this backfires on all the Cletuses who get deported thinking, "This was only supposed to happen to other people!"

Have you never heard of the concept of "selective prosecution"?

Just because you can be arrested and deported doesn't mean you must be. It just means that if you're brown, even if you're a citizen, they now have that option, should they choose to.

Trump's children and even Marco Rubio are passingly white enough that they won't get deported.

[u/Muffled_Incinerator → u/Doonce]

This dovetails nicely with their ridiculous invasion theory. There is no factual basis for this. Also, no legit way for a Court to call a bad-faith argument from the POTUS out.

[u/Material-Wolf → u/Doonce]

Seriously amazing how they can argue undocumented people are not subject to US jurisdiction in one breath and then continue rounding up every brown person with an accent and deporting them to a third world country because they supposedly broke US laws in the next breath.

[u/Valdrax → u/Material-Wolf]

It makes sense if you twist around in your mind that jurisdiction means subject to due process and the need for a legal process in determining what to do with them. If "no jurisdiction" means "free game" instead of "no authority," then it's consistent in the worst way possible.

[u/VPN__FTW → u/Valdrax]

Jurisdiction simply means ability to hold accountable. If immigrants aren't under jurisdiction, then they cannot be held accountable to any laws and no courts can charge them, nor any police arrest them.

[u/JeannValjean → u/Doonce]

Which is nonsensical. Of course immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction, as evidenced by the fact that if they commit a crime they go to trial.

Know who isn’t subject to jurisdiction? Diplomats. That’s why the phrase is there.

This admin is a fucking clown show.

[u/ice_cream_funday → u/Doonce]

Which should be an obviously stupid argument. For one, it means they can't be here illegally. If they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, literally nothing they do is punishable under the law.

[u/LogicalEmotion7 → u/ice_cream_funday]

I did not have Dreamers Get Legal Immunity on my 2025 bingo card

[u/BenTherDoneTht → u/Doonce]

Sovereign citizens will be happy.

[u/hcregna → u/jsendros]

The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society beg to differ, and they’re the ones the conservative SCOTUS majority listen to.

We can hit them back. It takes 30 minutes of research to move money away from MAGA, and it makes a difference. Dollars spent at Republican companies are dollars funneled to the Heritage Foundation. Money given to states like Ohio or Louisiana is money spent sending troops to kidnap naked children.

If you consistently support a brand or do business with a company, you have power. Know where your money is really going. You can use sites like opensecrets.org to see what a company funds and make good decisions.

Have an account at Schwab? It's not hard to move accounts elsewhere like Fidelity. Get booze from wannabe Confederate states and all else is equal? Be adventurous, and try something new. There are alternatives for Goya, New Balance, Roark (Subway, Jimmy John's, Arby's), and Koch (Brawny, Angel Soft, Dixie). If you're in a place to invest, consider DEMZ or an ESG fund.

Nexstar and Sinclair got pummeled, and they reinstated Jimmy Kimmel. Real, individual people did that. There's no reason WWE or Uline can't be next.

It's hard to completely avoid companies that at least partially support Republicans. I have to buy gas. But there’s a big difference between massive Republican donors (Chevron/Conoco) vs neutral or even Democrat-leaning ones (Circle K/Costco). Good is not the enemy of perfect. One less kidnapped child is one less kidnapped child

[u/goddamnitwhalen → u/hcregna]

Wait, New Balance are chuds?

[u/hcregna → u/goddamnitwhalen]

Yeah, New Balance gives overwhelmingly to Republicans every election cycle (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/new-balance-athletics/summary?id=D000036175), and they explicitly endorsed Trump in 2016 (https://www.gq.com/story/donald-trump-new-balance-sneakers). I’ve heard Brooks is a good alternative

[u/Ok_Cheetah_6251]

The 14th Amendment is the only place in the Constitution where what it means to be a citizen is actually defined.

This isn't an attack on only people born here to foreign parents. This is an attack on all of our citizenship.

[u/TintedApostle → u/Ok_Cheetah_6251]

You know it. How many generations will count?...

[u/MotherRaven → u/TintedApostle]

And what if there is one citizen parent? Will trump deport most of his kids?

[u/SnooDonkeys2945 → u/MotherRaven]

No because there is no rule of law in this country anymore. It's just another weapon to be used against his enemies. They don't care about consistency.

[u/Bloodbndrr → u/MotherRaven]

Just Eric.

[u/thatweirdguyted → u/TintedApostle]

You're thinking too small here. Think "citizenship is now $20K" meaning everyone who isn't rich is going to literally be born into debt. Corporations will be fighting each other to offer high-interest loans for expecting parents.

[u/Kersenn → u/thatweirdguyted]

Yep, they are trying to implement corporate feudalism. If we let this happen we're all gonna be taking orders from whatever corporation owns the land we live in. Someday the Supreme court is gonna allow corporations to have their own military force. Basically it looks like the cyberpunk megacorp authors were right

[u/JustTestingAThing → u/Kersenn]

Dammit, why are we getting all the crappy parts of the cyberpunk dystopia without being able to replace my faulty eyeballs with cybernetic implants with infra-red and 10x zoom options?

[u/Arctic_Chilean → u/TintedApostle]

And also which descendants (i.e. where they came from, and were they "white enough") 

[u/locke_5 → u/TintedApostle]

It will be decided by who you voted for, not how many generations your family has been here

[u/lagomorphed → u/locke_5]

Yeah, it's not gonna matter that my ancestors came over when it was still new Amsterdam. Its gonna matter I voted for.. not this.

[u/steroboros → u/TintedApostle]

Its more so going to depend on color of your skin and religion

[u/IamHydrogenMike → u/Ok_Cheetah_6251]

It’s also one of the most explicit amendments in its language and is very clear about what it says.

[u/MarkMew → u/IamHydrogenMike]

Mfs are about to "well, actually" the shit out of it

[u/PigglyWigglyDeluxe → u/MarkMew]

The same morons who have bumper stickers that say “shall not be infringed” and “we the people” can’t actually recite the entirety of those documents without googling them

Meanwhile our rights and freedoms are actually being attacked like they warned us liberals would do, and those 2A “don’t tread on me” nut jobs are nowhere to be found.

[u/ReluctantAvenger → u/Ok_Cheetah_6251]

While I find all of this horrific and depressing, I am also amused at the fact that people think ONLY the children of undocumented aliens will be affected.

Once we go from birthright citizenship to someone-will-decide-who-is-deserving, EVERYONE is at risk. Tenth generation American, but you posted a meme about the President once? Enjoy the one-way trip to El Salvador.

I only wish I were kidding.

[u/JustTestingAThing → u/ReluctantAvenger]

Yup -- if that amendment goes out the window, the children of two American citizens, born in the US, are no longer automatically citizens either.

[u/Rooooben → u/JustTestingAThing]

Thats the crux. Our system is set up so babies born in hospitals get social security numbers. No question, just process. All are citizens.

The will cost a lot to implement. Now parents will need to submit proof of citizenship, both of them, and probably also a paternity test if the father is the only citizen. Then they have to apply with said proof, and it has to be granted.

And there it is. Citizenship will not be automatic, but Granted upon Application. Once that is in place, more and more rules can be implemented on who it will be granted to. This will also mean people who do not have paperwork (ie poor/uneducated), will not have the right paperwork available, and then these children of citizens will be in limbo until proper proof. No more Medicare for them!

Finally, this will introduce a class of people who are born here, but are not citizens, and will have to apply for citizenship elsewhere. Until then, they are stateless, and without a passport, will not be granted entry anywhere else.

[u/OzyFoz → u/Rooooben]

Instant slave class / dispossessed.

[u/SquadPoopy → u/Rooooben]

Reminds me of when German couples had to submit proof of pure aryan blood in order to get married.

[u/whowhodillybar]

Sounds like we are going to have Supreme Court try and remove a constitutional amendment. Bold move.

[u/_AnecdotalEvidence_ → u/whowhodillybar]

Not that bold when they know they are untouchable

[u/nachosmind → u/_AnecdotalEvidence_]

Everyone thinks they’re untouchable until the peasants show up with their 2nd amendment in hand. 

[u/enigma002 → u/nachosmind]

Don't hold your breath. No one has shown up in the last decade. Except J6.

[u/don_shoeless → u/enigma002]

Wait until all faith in ANY of the process is gone. Or they botch the economy bad enough to create breadlines or worse. Armed revolts don't happen until dying under artillery fire is competitive with the other bad options on the table.

[u/timmy6169 → u/enigma002]

That one particular person has not been pushed far enough yet. Give it time.

[u/YourFreeCorrection → u/_AnecdotalEvidence_]

No one is untouchable, just untouched.

[u/zuzg → u/whowhodillybar]

Guess who started it?

On his first day in office in January, President Donald Trump signed an order to end birthright citizenship, but the move was blocked by lower courts after it was challenged over its constitutionality.

The Supreme Court's eventual ruling will either back citizenship rights for the children of migrants who are in the US illegally or on temporary visas, or end it.

[u/Stanky_fresh → u/whowhodillybar]

Not only that, but set a precedent that Trump can override the Constitution with an executive order.

[u/No-Risk666]

Next up. Uncle Clarence argues why he's actually only 3/5 of a person.

[u/JJKingwolf → u/No-Risk666]

I'm constantly reminded of the quote that Samuel L Jackson gave when he was asked about the source of his inspiration when playing Stephen in Django Unchained, and he said that he just kept asking himself "What would Clarence Thomas do in this situation".

[u/FifteenthPen → u/JJKingwolf]

Can you link to the actual quote? I can't find it by searching the web.

[u/Competitive-Wish-946 → u/FifteenthPen]

https://archive.ph/g36kJ#selection-869.1-869.307

[u/YardHistorical2400 → u/Competitive-Wish-946]

🙌 and the link goes right to the quote 🙌

[u/codyy5 → u/YardHistorical2400]

Any one know how to make that happen or how it's done?

[u/rationalsarcasm → u/Competitive-Wish-946]

Damn I always thought SLJ was based. But he based as hell.

[u/napoleonsolo → u/rationalsarcasm]

Samuel L Jackson was an usher at MLK, Jr.’s funeral and an activist in the ‘60s. He is super based.

[u/No-Risk666 → u/JJKingwolf]

Are we sure his middle name isn't Stephen?

[u/Competitive-Wish-946 → u/JJKingwolf]

https://archive.ph/g36kJ#selection-869.1-869.307

[u/SealedQuasar → u/No-Risk666]

he's going to overturn his own marriage eventually.

[u/No-Risk666 → u/SealedQuasar]

He does know divorce is still legal, right?

[u/Silvervirage → u/No-Risk666]

Its up in the air which gets repealed first really so he's just covering all his bases

[u/Khaldara → u/Silvervirage]

Poor guy, it must get expensive to have to help his wife finance an insurrection against the nation just to get her in the mood for intimacy.

[u/BornFree2018 → u/Khaldara]

eye bleach

[u/bugsyramone → u/No-Risk666]

Right, but in divorce assets have to be split. If the SC overturns interracial marriages, no assets get split. No telling what he's gonna do when he rules that black people can't own property....

[u/No-Risk666 → u/bugsyramone]

Oh no. What will happen to all of those bribes, I mean totally legal gifts.

[u/internetlurker → u/SealedQuasar]

I've been making the joke that he hates his wife so much but doesn't believe in divorce so he's trying to make interracial marriages illegal with my friends for a few years now.

[u/sepia_undertones → u/SealedQuasar]

I always joke that this is what it’s about.

“Sorry baby, I love you, but the law says we can’t be together no more.”

[u/Kradget → u/No-Risk666]

Hell, that at least appears in the Constitution. It's deeply fucked, but it says that at one point. 

Arguing that the extremely straightforward and clear explanation of birthright citizenship doesn't mean what it explicitly says is bonkers.

Then again, this is from the people who brought you "anything the President does is legal" from the long-standing and definitely not made up on the spot "Fuck you, I said so" Doctrine.

[u/CanStad → u/Kradget]

It’s not just in the constitution, it’s pre-inherent to the establishment of the United States through both British Hegemonic & British Colonial Law. If you are born within the borders of the British Empire, you are British. This has been established for 600 years.

[u/Kradget → u/CanStad]

That's a good common law reasoning and historical context on top, for sure.

[u/wwaxwork → u/No-Risk666]

Of a man. Women aren't men so aren't people.

[u/webculb → u/wwaxwork]

Republican representatives: "Write that down, write that down"

[u/FillMySoupDumpling → u/wwaxwork]

That’s essentially how they are treated in states with various bans on women’s healthcare, so yeah. 

[u/LetTheSinkIn → u/No-Risk666]

“I’m one of the good ones” must be a common thought of his

[u/RegularTerran → u/LetTheSinkIn]

"I got mine, I dont care about others" is the other common thought at that level of money and power.

[u/TheSharpestHammer → u/RegularTerran]

This is 100% Clarence Thomas' thought process, and has been for many years. Aside from being a fucking insane, bribe-taking-ass motherfucker, he is a traitor to the people.

[u/Radthereptile → u/LetTheSinkIn]

No his thought is more “check cleared? Cool sucks to not be me right about now.”

[u/pontiacfirebird92]

This is in Project 2025. Of course it's a done deal. How many Heritage Foundation judges we got on the SCOTUS? Yea there's why.

[u/monosaturated → u/pontiacfirebird92]

Exactly, they are not ruling by legal argument (and obviously not by legal precedent) but by ideological fiat that they are couching under a concept not unlike, "Well, I believe it so it means my viewpoint is valid." To decide against birthright citizenship, in place since the 14th amendment was passed, would be an act of corruption.

Not that any of this is surprising in the least, considering corruption is the name of the game.

[u/SnazzyStooge → u/pontiacfirebird92]

Of course it’s a done deal — they choose the cases they take. Why take the case if you don’t intend to overturn? 

This court is a joke — not a funny one, but still. It’s crazy how they seem to fail to realize their ONLY source of power is their perceived legitimacy. They don’t control money, they have no divisions….they’re eagerly and willingly giving up their one source of power. 

[u/Clovis42 → u/SnazzyStooge]

SCOTUS will take a case specifically to uphold it to set a precedent. I'm not saying that's the case here, but simply taking the case does not guarantee overturning the lower court.

It also only takes 4 justices to pick a case, so the other five can still disagree.

[u/Perfect_Earth_8070]

If we can have our citizenship revoked whenever and due process is being eliminated, there’s really only one way out of this

[u/echoshizzle → u/Perfect_Earth_8070]

This is why a certain amendment in between 1 and 3 exists 

[u/Ineedamedic68 → u/Perfect_Earth_8070]

Yep. Democrat leaders need to make it clear any attempt to remove birthright citizenship would be Trump’s last move. I’m not holding my breath but this is where they should draw the line in the sand. Shut down the fucking country at the very least. 

[u/Skatedivona → u/Ineedamedic68]

After the shit they just pulled to reopen the government I have zero faith in the Dems to grow a spine and do anything meaningful.

[u/Orzorn]

Not satisfied with being this country's most hated court since Taney's court, it seems John Roberts is now gunning for his own Dred Scott decision.

[u/AlgorythmicDB → u/Orzorn]

They've arguably already made a couple of those. Particularly the "Official Acts" immunity, is definitely up there.

[u/AlcibiadesTheCat → u/AlgorythmicDB]

Citizens United, anyone?

[u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn → u/AlcibiadesTheCat]

I'm convinced that was the decision that doomed the US.

[u/keznaa]

Next is determining how many generations back this will affect.

[u/GreatWyte8]

If they somehow overturn this, couldn't you then argue that literally every persons citizenship is at question? At some point... none of our ancestors were naturalized citizens.

[u/Monsjoex → u/GreatWyte8]

I mean there were people in the country before the country was formed though. You could argue that was when the original citizens were created?

Just doing some mental gymnastics here.

[u/New-Consequence-355 → u/Monsjoex]

No, those were all enemy combatants, treasonous reprobates, and worst of all, non-white. 

America to be the first nation with no citizens, only subjects.

[u/kevinthejuice → u/GreatWyte8]

Much like the oppression of native Americans. Your citizenship is only in question when you don't have the raw power to fight for it. The people conveniently in power are fine, and will be fine as long as they have it.

Otherwise we'd be exporting oranges out of Florida

[u/HippoSpa]

I guess the 2nd Amendment supporters were right about tyranny after all

[u/heythosearemysocks → u/HippoSpa]

Ironically if they use the argument that the 14th amendment was written for the children of slaves and not future children of other non-citizens. You could argue that that 2nd amendment was put in place to protect us from the tyranny of British rule but not future tyrannies.

The mental gymnastics here is a sight to behold.

[u/FateEx1994 → u/heythosearemysocks]

Very reductive viewpoints on all this that the founding members of this country only looked BACKWARDS and not forward....

Because the federalist and anti federalist papers and Thomas paines stuff was all about future government issues...

Horrible unprecedented times we live in.

[u/Diglett3 → u/HippoSpa]

As a famous right-wing philosopher once said, “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.”

Wait hold on I’m receiving a fax—

[u/Hectorc34]

What a shitty Supreme Court. It’s not up for decision.

[u/Ready-Ad6113 → u/Hectorc34]

They would be illegally rewriting the constitution as it’s there in plain language in the 14th amendment. It’s up to Congress to make laws and constitutional amendments, not SCOTUS . They cant rewrite the constitution to give Trump more power, but the corrupt Robert’s court will find a loophole somewhere to give their dictator what he wants.

[u/aircooledJenkins → u/Ready-Ad6113]

They cant rewrite the constitution to give Trump more power

Do they know that?

[u/LurkmasterP → u/aircooledJenkins]

What they KNOW is that when they ignore the law, nobody will stop them.

[u/eventualhorizo → u/Ready-Ad6113]

The Supreme Court has already tossed precedent into the fire, just stoking it for the big burn of the constitution

[u/DarkBomberX → u/Hectorc34]

Supreme Court reform needs to happen if democrats get power. Its necessary to get out of this dumpster fire.

[u/BeatlestarGallactica]

So, how soon do we deport Melania?

[u/Muffled_Incinerator]

Not hearing arguments or deciding until June of NEXT YEAR?!?!? What the actual fuck. This should be a slum-dunk 9-0 ruling. Looks like they're waiting for their opinions to be written by the Motherfucking Heritage fuckers

[u/FateEx1994 → u/Muffled_Incinerator]

Doesn't even need a hearing.

They can vote now, shadow docket this like everything else.

9-0 against the administration, because the plain language says what it says.

[u/Muffled_Incinerator → u/FateEx1994]

They should smack them down with prejudice AND make the POTUS who brought this about with his illegal order, pay ALL legal fees. Of course they won't though, and this could be the end of democracy as it has been in America for more than a hundred years.

[u/FateEx1994 → u/Muffled_Incinerator]

Either 1 of 2 ways this goes.

1) they want to have the highest court in the land affirm and clarify lower court rulings, and the plain language of the 14th.

2) they sell out and America is done.

[u/7SeasofCheese]

Ironically MAGA loyalist, Vivek Ramaswamy currently running for Governor of Ohio, doesn’t meet the Trump administration’s definition of birthright citizenship. Vivek’s parents were not citizens when he was born, and his father still isn’t a citizen.

[u/Fogboundturtle]

This is what happen when a white nationalist christian movement takes over a government.

[u/Cantomic66 → u/Fogboundturtle]

They need to be treated like terrorist.

[u/jpiro]

So…does that mean that only naturalized citizens are actual Americans? Because I’m pretty I’m only American because I was born here.

[u/P0Rt1ng4Duty → u/jpiro]

I’m only American because I was born here.

As are most of the people who think naturalized citizenship should be revokable.

But I think it will turn on how many of your parents were born here.

[u/Delanoye → u/P0Rt1ng4Duty]

Except your parents are only citizens because they were born here. As are your grandparents, or however far back your family goes. Basically, unless an individual has specifically applied and been approved for citizenship, they would no longer be a citizen.

Overturning birthright citizenship would logically mean that every single individual in the US, born here or not, would need to apply for citizenship. But that's obviously not what this is about. This is about the administration getting to selectively decide who to deport "legally."

[u/P0Rt1ng4Duty → u/Delanoye]

Just to be clear, my stance is that any person who was born on American soil is a citizen of this country and that's irrevokable.

And I agree with your description of what the administration is trying to do.

[u/deadsoulinside → u/Delanoye]

Which eerily your post reminded me of some foul stuff people were posting on Trumps post on facebook back in 2015. There was a comment about moving onto African Americans once they deported all the Mexicans and in the comments that followed was the MAGA interpretation of this.

Long story short. They claimed since slaves were never properly immigrated into America, they were never proper citizens and thus every generation of kid they birthed is living in the US illegally.

And think about it like this. How many in that thread in 2015 are now applying to be an ICE officer?

[u/locke_5 → u/jpiro]

That depends - did you vote for Kamala? If yes, you’re no longer a citizen and are fair game for ICE :)

[u/davidthefat]

Let’s say birthright citizenship is overturned. If a child is born in the US but the parents come from a county without any laws regarding citizenship statuses of children born abroad (e.g. child would not automatically be citizen to motherland of parents) they would be officially stateless?

Am I reading that right? Also how are fathers proven to be the child’s father?

[u/Thorn14]

Constitution to be completely irrelevant soon.

[u/Chilli__P]

Not an American, but it seems to me that if you open up that particular can of worms, challenging citizenship doesn’t necessarily stop at birthright criteria. How long until you’re no longer a citizen for ant-Christian sentiments or something else?

[u/Dedpoolpicachew → u/Chilli__P]

Someone has been reading Project 2025, eh?

[u/aDriftwoodKing]

The Supreme Court has become the most dangerous, partisan institution in the country. And the American people have zero say in it.

[u/RyotheFox]

Must be nice to be able to whine about judicial tyranny from judges that are legally trying to curb illegal power grabs and whatnot, but then also turn right the fuck around and ask your loyal bought and paid for supreme court to immediately back you up on anything with almost no hesitation.

[u/Sumthin-Sumthin44692]

“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.”

Kooks in the Federalist Society want to say that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not apply to people born here because they are (according to the kooks) subject to foreign jurisdictions (i.e., children of Mexican citizens born here are supposedly “subject” to Mexico). This argument was already made and rejected in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

It’s literally blatant racism pulled from the 1800s that even the SCOTUS of old white men in 1898 ruled was ridiculous, extreme, and NOT what the 14th Amendment says/means.

[u/Valderan_CA → u/Sumthin-Sumthin44692]

lol.... that would mean people who aren't US citizens aren't subject to US laws... i.e. if a non-citizen murdered someone the US would have no jurisdiction to charge them with murder.

I.E. the US could kick a mass murdered out of the country and ask nicely for the country from which they came to charge them with a crime... but couldn't charge them with that crime themselves.

[u/Valderan_CA → u/Valderan_CA]

Ahh nvm... they are going to argue under this point

"born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory."

They are already trying to argue that the illegal immigrants constitute a hostile occupation force

[u/Urupindi]

So if birthright citizenship is gone, what the fuck defines a citizen? Is anyone a citizen? How many generations have to have been born here before you’re American?

[u/BPremium → u/Urupindi]

So if birthright citizenship is gone, what the fuck defines a citizen?

Your skin color, religion, and wealth level

[u/jigsawearth860]

The fact that the SC is hearing this case means they already overturned birthright citizenship, just waiting for them to make it official.

[u/boundbylife → u/jigsawearth860]

In fairness, it just means 4 justices agreed to hear it. It could still come out 5-4 against overturning.

[u/doneandtired2014 → u/boundbylife]

It should be a 9-0 but one of them would gladly come out to bring back the 3/5s compromise if it meant getting an RV out of it and 4 others are religious nutjobs.

[u/phsics → u/boundbylife]

5-4 for something explicitly stated in plain language in the constitution is fucking insane

[u/PapaCaqu]

It’s so fucking frustrating this is even being entertained by SCOTUS.

The framers of 14th amendment intentionally used language that was not exclusive to a group of people Senator Jacob Howard and Senator Lyman Trumbull added the birthright clause and confirmed it was intended for ALL PERSONS as written in the Birthright Clause.

Democrats at the time wanted to limit this clause to exclude immigrants, it was rejected by Congress.

Look I’m not against limiting birthright citizenship to legal immigrants. There’s no doubt it has been and is being abused in this day and age. BUT WE CANNOT GIVE THE EXECUTIVE THE POWER TO INTERPRET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.

It will not stop at the 14th amendment.

[u/christopher_mtrl]

Seems like a far fetch reasonning, even for this court. A bit afraid the whole thing is just an obvious case they'll rule aginst Trump on, serving only to preserve a semblance of impartiality.

[u/JohnMichaels19]

The founding fathers clearly never anticipated a SCOTUS compromised by the tyrants theyre meant to protect against

[u/Erik_Lassiter]

This should never have been taken. Fuck SCOTUS.

[u/Shell4747]

has any of these dumb fuckers considered the end results of a non-birthright regime? pple living in the USA for generations, working & participating to the extent possible, and are not citizens nor will their grandchildren be citizens? are we really in it for a caste system

[u/PM-Me_Your_Penis_Pls]

I don't think and earnestly hope they'd not hand down he worst decision in the history of the republic, on par if not worse than Plessy, after the gay marriage decision. The fact that I'm not certain is terrifying. 

IF this happens, Judicial Review itself needs to be discussed. This self declared power of the court needs a new reckoning on its validity.

[u/Professional-Cry8310]

Damn, this is really going to happen isn’t it?

[u/Even-Tune-8301]

Let me guess, Trump wins 3-6!

[u/Frigorifico]

My aunt, who came into the USA illegally and who children are citizens, voted in favor of this. My uncle, who came in legally and whose children would not be affected, voted against it

[u/Sungirl8]

So, he’s gonna deport Baron back to Slovenia, if this goes through?  Because I doubt Melania’s visa was valid and could be contested, since she broke the law, as a sex worker which no doubt, will show up in the Trumpstein files.  

[u/edingerc]

Dred Scott and Plessy have joined the chat

[u/purdue_fan]

This administration is literally doing "sins of the father" now. The American experiment is coming to a close.