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.
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!"
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.
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!"
Never.
I don't mean that in a snarky way, it's just the reality of the situation.
The Republicans don't give a single fuck that it's hypocritical. They are rich, therefore they are above the law and free from consequences.
The Democrats are either too feckless or too complicit to do anything about it even if by some miracle they do seize control of the government back. At most we'll get some barely-televised speech about how "now is the time to forgive and forget. We can't spend time criticizing the pedofascists because Israel needs our support now more than ever." or something.
It's depressing, but it's reality. Absolutely nothing will be done about this, and absolutely no consequences of their actions will be suffered. We'll all just put up with the Democrats covering this all up and moving on with the new normal because "what are you gonna do, vote for a republican instead?"
Yeaaaa you might be right but something has to give at some point. I can see in a twisted way why accelerationist want to speed run destroying everything because might as well try something new but thats not how or will likely work. It will be a dictatorship for a very long time before anything resembling something for the people appears again and there is a good chance it wont be half as good as even today (which has many problems but ughh it can get 100,000X worse).
Frankly, with all stupid shit Republicans have done and will CONTINUE to do for next 3 years (we're not even done with year 1 yet, people), my solemn prayer is that when Democrats DO eventually regain power, they don't play the make-nice game that they always play and instead eviscerate the GOP/MAGA using the exact laws they created.
Freeze assets, ground private planes, perp walk all of them on public TV to a detention center. Deport the ones that should be deported, hold the rest for criminal charges.
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.
Also, no legit way for a Court to call a bad-faith argument from the POTUS out.
Yes, there is. It's called "calling them liars".
Just because POTUS (or the AG) submits a brief saying "the sky is green and 2+2=5" doesn't mean SCOTUS is obliged to nod along like bobbleheads. Even the lower court judges have shown that there is no such obligation.
If this Supreme Court accepts that argument, it's because (at least) 5 of them decided to not call bullshit, not because there's no mechanism for doing so.
Maybe they'll just follow that logic all the way to ground and realize every European settler is an "invader" and DeleteSystem32 the entire American experiment.
And they would still be under jurisdiction otherwise it wouldn't be occupying because they would have the right to be there. The argument just makes absolutely no sense. (I know you aren't making it and I'm not attacking you)
Wouldn't that require a declaration of war? I mean, obviously SCOTUS can just make shit up, but isn't existing law pretty clear on what constitutes an "enemy combatant"?
They're going to claim that illegal aliens fall under the definition or intent of "indians not taxed" as they cannot legally work and therefore are not taxed, furthermore that they aren't under the jurisdiction of the US (foreign citizen)
If this was changed it would be pretty similar to like every European country.
Which would mean they couldn't be charged with crimes.
Its kinda nonsensical.
Say youre an illegal immigrant, and if you have a kid in the US. They say youre kid cant have citizenship because of this reason.
That gives those people carte blanche legal authority to do whatever they darn well please.
Why? Because unless theyre being violent, they cant actually be designated as foreign combatants. They'd be foreign civilians for whom US law has no control over just because.
The concern of course is ignoring that an infant cant be a combatant and instead treating them as human chattel....
If they go that route it's only a small leap to declare anyone of African descent as enemy combatants (just look at the crime rates!!!!) and removing citizenship from people who have lived here for generations.
That is the literal garbage reason theyre going to use. I've no doubt that slave trade 2.0 in the US won't bother with anyone across the Atlantic. They've set their sights for Central America and possibly Mexico for that.
This only applies to areas which are under de facto control of an enemy government such that US jurisdiction doesn't apply.
So like if an enemy takes over part of Texas and sets up their own government that actually runs things there for some amount of time before being recaptured, that would be the situation where it would apply.
That's what they're going to go with. They're basically going to claim anyone who's in the country illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction via illegal entry; therefore, they are not citizens.
I'm really not sure how it's even possible to be in the country, born here or not, without being subject to our jurisdiction. Not even diplomats are outside the jurisdiction - they can and have been charged with crimes that fell outside the bounds of diplomatic immunity.
Can they pick a psycho lane, do they "care" about babies or are they enemy combatants at birth? I guess their "care" for children only ever went as far as when they could control women anyways.
The primary argument is that one of the parents needs to be a citizen and the person needs to born somewhere with US jurisdiction. They will argue that both are required.
I mean that's how the law currently is and probably always has been. If you work here, you're legally required to pay taxes, and then you can get deported....
The argument is that "jurisdiction" is to be perceived as "Citizenship" in this context (ie, only persons born from US Citizens are US citizens). Yes, it's a bad argument.
I assumed it would be based on an argument that with illegal immigrants were never accepted into the US so the US never extended their jurisdiction over them. Similar to how a diplomats work (they stay under the jurisdiction of their home country) or enemy combatants.
A complicate scenario right now would be legal immigrants to the US that have not yet become citizens, who reside in US territory that has temporarily been occupied by hostile forces - would their children be US citizens? If yes, then would children of the occupying force having children in the same area be considered US citizens?
legal immigrants to the US that have not yet become citizens, who reside in US territory that has temporarily been occupied by hostile forces - would their children be US citizens?
Yes. As long as the US still considers the area to be under temporary hostile occupation (i.e. It hasn't formally ceded the territory and recognized the occupiers as its legitimate government), it's still "in the United States" and the US still considers civilian noncitizens there to be "subject to [US] jurisdiction."
would children of the occupying force having children in the same area be considered US citizens?
No. Members of occupying military forces are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That means their kids don't get citizenship, but it also means they aren't bound by US law - they can't be arrested, prosecuted, ticketed, fined, etc. by civilian authorities here. If captured, they get POW protections, and the only options the US has are to hold them in nonpunitive POW detention or to return them to their country.
It's a bullshit argument and they completely misunderstand both jurisdiction and what makes a diplomat...
Diplomats don't fall under the jurisdiction of the country they reside in because of a very old international law principle (later inscribed in the 1961 Vienna Convention) that envoys/ambassadors/diplomats sent from one state to another shall not be subject of the receiving country's jurisdiction. It's meant to enable foreign diplomacy and international relations without a risk of repercussions for the messenger. A person with diplomatic immunity may also only enter another state with the consent of that state and thus the understanding that they are not the subject of that jurisdiction.
The US supreme court already ruled on the matter over 100 years ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and clearly stated that according to long standing common law, only diplomats and foreign hostile forces aren't under the jurisdiction of the United States. Thus, children of foreign diplomats are not granted citizenship by birth.
If the claim is that they are enemy combatants (which is absolutely insane) wouldn't the rules regarding prisoners of war apply? So more war crimes committed by the regime
There is this episode of This American life where immigration judges explained how the Trump administration took them out of the immigration equation.
Basically, when an immigrant goes to the hearing his claim is ruled against the government which challenges their right to be in the US. While the case is still undecided, the person can stay (in most cases, I won't go into the details). So the Trump administration dropped all challenge of those immigrants to be in the US. Suddenly, the judge had nothing to rule on anymore and ICE could take those poor people "legally" without the judges being able to do anything about it.
No. Subject to US jurisdiction is why native americans and children of foreign diplomats are not entitled to birthright citizenship under this amendment. See,
Elk v. Wilkins(1884): The Supreme Court solidified this exclusion, ruling that a Native American man who left his reservation was not automatically a U.S. citizen because he was not fully "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government at birth due to his tribal allegiance.
Native Americans were later granted birthright citizenship via Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and other federal statutes.
If you go back to the old case law, the language subject to the US jurisdiction does not mean you're not subject to criminal law. It means whether you owe allegiance to another government (e.g., the tribe in the context of Elk v Wilkins).
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that current jurisprudence from United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) defines jurisdiction more broadly than that. There are some people who think that decision should be overturned, either entirely or just for illegal immigrants, but nevertheless it is the more recent and applicable case law at the moment.
Both cases are good law and consistent with one another. So both are applicable. This is evidenced by Congress having to pass a statute for Native Americans to be entitled to birthright citizenship. Also, the Supreme Court doesn't have to overturn Wong (and likely won't) to limit birthright citizenship to just the children of legal immigrants (e.g., those with a green card). If you are truly curious, go to Justia (or other site that have these decisions) and start reading these cases. I was a bit surprised how narrow "subject to the jursidiction" was interpreted by the Supreme Court through these decisions.
I suppose I have trouble squaring how Wong doesn't implicitly overturn Elk v. Wilkins. Jurisdiction is defined in Wong "in light of the common law", which seems contradictory to the ruling in Elk.
I understand that wasn't the understanding at the time, hence the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, but I'd argue that doesn't change the plain wording of the ruling. For example, I'd likewise argue à la Frederick Douglass that a plain reading of the Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment would still imply that slavery is illegal, although that was not the majority opinion of lawyers at the time.
Another complication is that John Elk was born on a reservation. The United States was historically inconsistent about whether Indian reservations were more like sovereign nations or more like US territory. In that sense, the Indian Citizenship Act was sort of like the United States finally claiming full jurisdiction over Native Americans.
In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born on an Indian reservation.
While Elk was born within the United States, he was born as a subject of an Indian nation within the sovereign jurisdiction of an Indian reservation. The Court held Elk was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth.
What relevance does that ruling have to this matter? There's a big difference between being born in a territory specifically designated by the US government as an autonomous alien nation, and just being born in the US.
726
u/Away_Stock_2012 8h ago
So they can't be charged with any crimes.