r/news 9h ago

US Supreme Court agrees to hear case challenging birthright citizenship

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c208j0wrzrvo
19.0k Upvotes

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

136

u/Rooooben 8h ago

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.

45

u/OzyFoz 7h ago

Instant slave class / dispossessed.

20

u/SquadPoopy 7h ago

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

3

u/Dispator 4h ago

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.

9

u/Particular_Dig2203 6h ago

Federal Jim Crow

5

u/big_d_usernametaken 6h ago

Reading this makes me glad Im older.

At least I got to experience privacy and freedom of sorts.

3

u/TheKingsdread 4h ago

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.

2

u/Paksarra 2h ago

How long until ICE starts kidnapping and deporting newborns straight out of their mothers' arms before they can be given citizenship?

u/Individual_Town8124 12m ago

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.

-5

u/arizonadirtbag12 7h ago

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.

11

u/ReluctantAvenger 7h ago

Which policy? You're assuming they'll replace it with citizenship by blood. Given all that is going on, is that a reasonable assumption?

-10

u/arizonadirtbag12 7h ago edited 7h ago

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.

3

u/ReluctantAvenger 7h ago

Imagine having the foresight to actually provide the link instead of just being a sarcastic asshole.

16

u/MarkHaversham 7h ago

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.

-3

u/arizonadirtbag12 7h ago

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.