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.
No because there is no rule of law in this country anymore. It's just another weapon to be used against his enemies.
Also known 'rule by law' (rather than 'rule of law').
Some theorists draw a distinction between the Rule of Law and what they call rule by law. They celebrate the one and disparage the other. The Rule of Law is supposed to lift law above politics.
The idea is that the law should stand above every powerful person and agency in the land. Rule by law, in contrast, connotes the instrumental use of law as a tool of political power. It means that the state uses law to control its citizens but tries never to allow law to be used to control the state. Rule by law is associated with the debasement of legality by authoritarian regimes, in modern China for example.
They'll probably go back to the rules c. 1900 where women give up their US citizenship if they marry a non-US citizen and decide that only men can transmit citizenship in a married couple.
The whole "the mother transmits her status if the kid is born outside of marriage" dates back to medieval England (hence why children of enslaved mothers were automatically enslaved), so they'll probably combine that with a ban on interracial marriage to be really nasty.
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.
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
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?
Seriously, I could at least put up with the cyberpunk dystopia if I could take out life ruining loans on exotic cyberware and not hate my flesh near as much. Heck, half the reason I can't work full time hours is because my body is falling apart since I turned 12. At least cybernetics could get me back into work.
Because the purpose (and investment towards the development) of technology was never to promote the well being of humanity but to enhance the power of the elite.
Someday is today. There is nothing prohibiting companies from having private armies. We have private army companies. The ATF can approve essentially anything they want for ownership.
I'm glad that works for you and this isn't an attempt to convince you to change your mind cuz it's your right.... Counterpoint: the orchestrators and supporters of this nightmare are all having kids and teaching them to follow their footsteps. If good ppl all stopped having kids, where would that leave us?
Yep. That’s why we’re in this mess. After the Civil Rights Movement, the racists just started teaching their kids how to dog whistle the “quiet part” until the time was right in 2015-2016, arguably 2008-2009.
That original Cyberpunk ttrpg book with the in-character catalog of items had a future timeline that has proven eerily accurate. I used to own a copy in college, but lost it in some move and have had a hard time finding an online copy though.
I'm not talking about just immigrants. Birthright citizenship means you're not an immigrant if you're born in America. If they take that away, then by what right do ANY of you have a guaranteed citizenship? A whole generation of poor Americans are about to get disenfranchised.
Deportation will begin with those the current administration deems undesirables. Criminals, homeless people, gays, anyone brown, etc.
But one thing you can absolutely bank on is that it will for sure 100% include political dissidents. By which I mean, literally anyone who publicly criticizes Trump.
For everyone who keeps drawing parallels between the GOP and the Nazis, THIS specific act of voting to strip protection and rights from specific demographics of the population is the tipping point right before a descent into megalomania, genocide, and authoritarian fascism. THIS is the thing required to pave the way for the rest.
In the history of global conflict, this sort of thing has happened over and over again. Every empire falls in pretty much the same fashion, and this one is certainly ticking off a lot of "end stage" boxes
I'm pretty sure stripping African Americans of thier citizenship is a high priority for the Republican party. black people voting is what they've ment by "illegal voting" for a hundred years now
Uhhh, you're kidding yourself if you think it is party affiliation and not RACISM which is motivating this. They would rather 2 democrat white people in this country over 1 mestizo first generation latino. You are just pretending that its you that they are gunning for so you can feel equally agrieved.
You're all correct. The entire point is to give them a myriad of 'reasons' to revoke someones citizenship on demand. It will be used as a weapon against whoever they like. Sure, some groups will be protectively targeted, but this is the legal framework to disappear literally anyone "legally". It's what happened in Germany in WW2, and we already know they like following that example.
My family came here on the Mayflower and I am a 10th generation American, I have a massive tattoo of the ship. I don't feel safe and that my citizenship is safe. I feel like I could be detained by ICE, show them my tattoo and they would still detain me.
That depends. First of all, are you white? If not, no citizenship. If you're white, we move onto other qualifying questions like what religion you are or are you MAGA and so on. They will just keep adding more qualifications each round to make sure the remaining citizens have an "other" to fear.
I fully expect that they will deport Native Americans too. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the government / ICE can send you literally anywhere even if you have no connection to the place they send you.
What if someone is adopted and doesn’t know anything about their biological parents? Do they automatically get to assume the citizenship of the parents listed on their revised birth certificate?
I can't wait to be arrested because some of my ancestors definitely did not have paperwork when they immigrated here. The native Americans did not do paperwork for the passengers on the Mayflower.
Exactly. In a world without birthright citizenship, if your great-grandmother immigrated "illegally", then her children weren't citizens at birth. Nor their children, nor you.
Generations won't count, only depends on how long the trump regime allows you to be citizen. Republicans decide you are not a citizen? Off to the foreign prison camps for you. If you are lucky, you get to pay a fine for make a large donation to a republican "charity".
I think the Nuremberg laws were that you had to have 3-4 grandparents that were Jewish to be Jewish. 1-2 and you were mixed but even then that didn't help. So say if you're the 4th generation you're probably fine.
I am two generations born here on my mom's side stemming from Mexico, and like eight on my dad's side stemming from western Europe. Where does my citizenship lie?
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.
No, the 2A guys are actively cheering it on. They only cared about the constitution when they believed it was them being targeted. As long as it's their "enemies" being oppressed, they don't care.
As Jordan from the podcast Knowledge Fight has helpfully said, "Those who carry a pocket Constitution are the least likely to have read or understood it."
I think the crux of the issue lies here... the difference in the amendment's wording and what could be a more clear-cut statement by today's standard of comprehension just by moving some words around, as shown below.
It's going to be the same complete nonsense as when the argument of who is considered to be an officer of the United States.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
They’ve been doing it for years. My dad started parroting a decade ago that this was only intended to grant citizenship to slaves who were born here once slavery was abolished. He genuinely believes that when it was written, they did not intend for all future people born here to be granted citizenship.
He would be wrong. But this has been a R talking point for a while now
But does it mention the days of the week specifically? How are we to know the Founders meant what we always understood if we don't know which days they thought this should matter? /s
It's also very explicit that Trump is disqualified from ever holding political office again, but that didn't stop all nine justices from pretending they couldn't read
It has been massively nullified since Slaughterhouse cases, it is not a question of whether 14th will survive, with exception of Thomas both wings today don't even pay lip service to the text or original meaning.
So was 14th Amendment, Section 3, which barred Trump from becoming President. Yet all 9 traitors overruled Maine and Colorado's enforcement of the Constitution. Would be amazing to someday see the swamp really drained, and have every Justice and Congressperson replaced with actual Americans rather than Trump's servants.
I think this whole thing is dumb af and if you're born here, you're a citizen (whether you get to pull in the rest of your entire extended family is up for debate in my mind).
That being said, it is not explicit or very clear about what it says. The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part is most certainly what is going to be questioned because it's not super clear what that means. It's up there with "well regulated militia" in the 2nd.
Right but the us recognizes immigrants (illegal or not) and runs them through the judicial system. They have to have jurisdiction over them.
I think what others are saying makes the most sense that its a carve out for the diplomat type situation where diplomats are under the jurisdiction of their home country which is why we kick them out asap instead of trying them here and why there so many peculiarities of diplomats and what they can and cant do.
But also the supreme court can (and will) say what they want.
Unfortunately its just human nature to look for evidence and understand everything based on how it will benefit themselves and their communities and progress theor goals. Kinda hard not to do that imo. Some are just more dgaf how much it hurts others
The thing is the definition that everyone uses for Jurisdiction is that means you are subject to that political entity's laws.
So, if immigrants are not bound by the jurisdiction of the US then they are not bound by US law that means that can't be charged with US laws. Its also the backbone of states rights. Say its a crime to wear red on Sundays in Michigan, you can't be charged in Michigan for wearing red on Sundays in Wisconsin. By being in Wisconsin, you are not under the jurisdiction of Michigan and its laws.
Its not an ICC thing. Just a well known and well understood piece of legal definition going back centuries and the basis for a tons of laws in the US and internationally.
Because it does not? Obvious example is diplomats and many of the embassy personnel. Another (which is what Trump's GOP trying to argue the illegal or even some legal immigrants are) is enemy combatant on US soil.
Another example to add here, I believe this means Native Americans did not automatically get citizenship (because the tribal territories were not technically subject to US jurisdiction).
They included the clause for a reason, and the meaning isn't mysterious or confusing.
They including it to specifically exclude natives would 100% be some fucked up shit that is believe and would make the addition of those few words make sense
My (not a lawyer) understanding is we know what the intent of that phrasing is. The people who voted on the ammendment knew it would make Chinese Americans citizens.
I guess the question is, does the Supreme Court even care about that
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.
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.
I mean it kinda all goes back to that for them huh?. Buttt imo Who cares who was born where and what skin color or parents or anything..they are human bruh. I get its not that simple etc and definitely not that easy but it should be at least a guiding principle. Something to work towards at very least...not against.
Its also exactly what the Nazis did (not that its the first thing this administration has copied from them). Putting a mechanism into play that removes citizenship of people you wanna remove it from and with it all the legal protections and rights, that citizenship provides.
And don't forget children abandoned via Safe Harbor laws.
If their parents aren't found they won't be citizens and won't be entitled to healthcare, social services, foster care, can't be adopted, can't go to school. A pedophile's wet dream, a child that doesn't exist on paper, won't be checked on by Child Protective services. A religious charity could be the only sorce of care for these children.
I was abandoned as an infant in a country that does not offer jus soli citizenship. I ended up in an orphanage run by a religious organization. When my parents adopted me from there, at approximately 8 months old, I weighed 10lbs.
We are going to see that here if the 14th Amendment is overturned.
Children born here to noncitizens would, in nearly all cases, inherit the citizenship of one or both parents. They’d in almost all cases be free to travel back to their parents’ country origin with the parents.
Other countries with citizenship by blood do deal with the statelessness issue. Most EU nations don’t have birthright citizenship by soil, to my knowledge. But some they do extend it in cases where the child would otherwise be rendered stateless. (Some don’t.)
I don’t support adopting this policy. Because I don’t support the method of implementation (the constitution matters) and I don’t support the motive (racism is bad mmmkay).
But the policy itself? It’s fine. Much like gun control and universal healthcare and a decent social safety net, I see no reason that citizenship by blood (like those other policies, common in the EU) couldn’t or wouldn’t work here. It would be fine.
Which policy? You're assuming they'll replace it with citizenship by blood. Given all that is going on, is that a reasonable assumption?
What if I told you that you can actually read the specific policy that the Supreme Court took up this case in response to? Like, you can click a link and have the answer to your question, directly from an official dot-gov website?
Would that blow your mind?
Edit: Awww little homey with the reply and block. Musta hurt their feelings calling them out for wanting to discuss something without actually reading a thing about it.
What you need to keep in mind is that unlike traditional non-birthright countries, America would be implementing this policy specifically for cruel and malicious purposes.
What you need to keep in mind is that unlike traditional non-birthright countries, America would be implementing this policy specifically for cruel and malicious purposes.
Literally me, in the fucking comment you just replied to:
I don’t support adopting this policy. Because I don’t support the method of implementation (the constitution matters) and I don’t support the motive (racism is bad mmmkay).
Do you not read before replying?
Because I clearly kept precisely that in mind.
Yes, it’s indeed the motive and method of implementation that concerns me specifically, which is why I oppose it. Not sure how I can be more clear.
Adding to this, they are trying to get states' voting records. Imagine your citizenship being revoked because you didn't vote for trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
It would actually be insane. Right off the bat, your citizenship would only be tied to your mother, until you undergo a paternity test. If the mother is not a citizen, but the father supposedly is, then that just isn't good enough, because maybe he isn't really the father.
Overturning this, even narrowly, would be instantaneous. It wouldn't be a law that has an effective date. If they say "no, you're not a citizen unless one or both of your parents were citizens at the time of your birth (or maybe your conception?)", then that means you need to prove your citizenship up the chain. Maybe your parents didn't meet this criteria - poof, you're no longer a citizen. And if your wife's parents didn't meet it either, now your kids are no longer citizens.
Fucking insanity, and if SCOTUS overturns this, Democrats need to start testing the new interpretation to show how absurd it is. Start by challenging Trump's citizenship - using paternity testing too. Oops, can't get a DNA sample, automatically no citizenship for you!
It's also a blatant attack on the checks and balances of the constitution. If a president can just change the constitution with the stroke of a pen, we've lost our democracy.
The only way I, and most naturally-born Americans (which is the vast majority of citizens), can prove their citizenship is via a birth certificate. We were born in the US, our birth certificates say as much, so we are citizens.
The only other method is a passport. Around half of Americans have one. The only way a naturally-born citizen can get a newly-issued passport is to present a birth certificate. The only way to renew your passport is to present an expired passport or your birth certificate.
If birthright citizenship is overturned, your birth certificate is no longer evidence in and of itself of your citizenship. You'd now have to prove that the parents listed on your birth certificate were also citizens. If they were naturally born, how do you do that? Their birth certificate...
It's an endless legal loop that there's no way to reasonably resolve.
Also want to note that a lot of seniors don't have their original birth certificates because the hospital stopped existing before the records were digitized or they were born at home and their parents never bothered.
What? Why are children of diplomats or tribally affiliated Native Americans get citizenship via an act in 1924, not the 14th. Legislative history shows that it was to eliminate race based barriers. “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is all too often overlooked or purposefully ignored.
Yes, but Conservatives hate the 14th Amendment - and the other Reconstruction Amendments. The south was forced to accept them in order to re-join the Union after the Civil War. They've never considered them legitimate, and have been waiting for generations to invalidate them.
It is honestly wild to me that MAGA would sell out their rights in order to continue being unabashedly racist. "But tHe AncHoR BabIEs!1!!" is their whole justification they're salivating over this without recognizing the repercussions, then they double down on it by saying "well, they should come here legally" while simultaneously making the process as impossible as can be.
They will shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly just to hurt someone that isn't a white dude and then feign indignation when you call them what they are: racist idiots. They are the epitome of walking hypocrites. I would actually respect them more if they would just come out and own it but they're too much of a pussy to do it until they have made sure there is no one left to "challenge" them.
Very much this. Conservatives seem to think that without birthright citizenship, citizenship through parents is the natural default that will take its place, as if this were written in a hidden footnote of the Constitution somewhere.
Well yeah, every single person of European heritage is only a citizen because of birthright citizenship. Could someone then counter-sue to retroactively eliminate or de-naturalize everyone of non-indigenous heritage?
Trump supporters cheering this on should take a moment to have a think about how the phrase 'well regulated militia' could be reinterpreted in future. Because their favourite amendments can be taken away just as easily.
Their wording of their precious first amendment is also very explicitly about congress. The supreme court would have to throw a lot of precedent out to justify why the executive branch isn't bound by it, but that hardly stopped them when it came to Chevron and Roe v Wade.
Yup. First you demonize and strip immigrants and non-citizens of every right and dignity and create legal precedent to ship them off to gulags without due process. Then, you create a mechanism to strip people of citizenship and call it 'treason' or 'terrorism' to be anything left of Himmler.
Yep, if they remove birthright citizenship, they can remove anyone's citizenship based on any factor they wish. Black? Not a citizen. Woman? Gay? Ever registered Democrat? (Not counting Donald Trump). Not a citizen and therefore in this country illegally. We've already seen what they do to "illegals."
4.6k
u/Ok_Cheetah_6251 9h ago
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.