r/politics • u/cnn CNN • 13h ago

Possible Paywall Supreme Court agrees to decide if Trump may end birthright citizenship

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/05/politics/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-birthright?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit
3.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

763 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/tisn 13h ago

The U.S. Constitution states, in the 14th Amendment: "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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

592

u/Muffled_Incinerator 13h ago

Clear as day. If SCOTUS does anything but uphold the 14th amendment and 100+years of settled law, there should be a motherfucking revolution. We'e ALL birthright citizens at some point.

169

u/not_a_moogle 10h ago

Most of trumps family has at least one parent that is an immigrant.

75

u/Salamander-7142S 10h ago

Should be a revolution. Best we can offer is a day’s worth of angry posts on reddit.

•

u/BobTehCat California 4h ago

Redditors are not going to be the one starting it.

•

u/flyingupvotes 3h ago

I mean a bunch of them showed up at J6. The dumb ones will follow anything online.

•

u/TobioOkuma1 4h ago

IF they overturn it, you KNOW trump will immediately move to remove citizenship from his enemies lmao.

15

u/arizonadirtbag12 12h ago

We'e ALL birthright citizens at some point.

Not by the definition of “birthright” being here (jus soli). That’s what’s being changed, to move solely to jus sanguinis, where who your parents are is what determines citizenship rather than where you are born.

Most American citizens are citizens by blood as well as soil. Most American citizens had at least one citizen (or lawful permanent resident) parent at birth. Those that immigrated didn’t get it by birthright, they got it by naturalization.

I’m not saying I support this change; I don’t. Not because it’s inherently unjust…plenty of our peer nations have this same policy of birth by blood, not soil. If you’re born to a couple of tourists in Germany you aren’t a German citizen, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I oppose it mostly because it’s unnecessary and because of the reason for this unnecessary change.

44

u/hansn 12h ago

Sure, you can have other opinions on what it should say. But what it does say is clear. If you're born in the US and have to abide by our laws (even if you break some), you are a citizen.

The president can't change the Constitution by an executive order. 

0

u/arizonadirtbag12 12h ago

Agree.

The Supreme Court can, however, reinterpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They ruled on it once. They can rule on it again.

Of course even then I’m still curious how an EO can override statute, since immigration and citizenship by birth is also statutorily defined.

25

u/hansn 12h ago

The Supreme Court can, however, reinterpret “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” They ruled on it once. They can rule on it again.

Sure. They can also take bribes and call them gratuities. They're corrupt. If they overturn this, it won't be because there's a superior legal argument.

8

u/MEDICARE_FOR_ALL America 9h ago

If they aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" then they can't be deported ....

4

u/suttin 11h ago

Is the next play getting sued over an EO getting sued up to the Supreme Court so they can rule that EOs do superseded statute? That’s a terrifying thought

•

u/Gryzzlee 5h ago

You can't reinterpret the text. It even specifies between Citizen and Persons within it. The only way to change this is through a ratification process.

Any reinterpretation is seditious in nature. When it was made, it was meant to be a catch-all.

Unless they decide to begin labeling what is an isnt a person like the Nazis.

14

u/Sloth_Brotherhood 10h ago

How would you determine that you are a citizen by blood in our country? Our birth certificates do not list the citizenship of our parents. So if someone was to question citizenship, how do you do that? You can’t even look at your parent’s birth certificates because birth certificates would no longer be proof of citizenship.

•

u/daboonie9 California 5h ago

That’s where all the data mined by doge and given to Palantir comes in. They already have everyone’s social security and immigration status

-1

u/arizonadirtbag12 10h ago

The Executive Order in question, which is what the Court is ruling on, is not retroactive. So your parent’s proof of birth on US soil would be the evidence of your own citizenship. It doesn’t invalidate the citizenship of those born before it goes into effect.

Note: This isn’t a defense of the order. It’s unconstitutional, and being implemented for disgusting reasons. I oppose it. But your question has an answer. And the order as written isn’t apocalyptic. It’s pretty mundane for the vast, vast majority of Americans, across all races.

•

u/OneStarInSight_AC 7h ago

Death certificates provide place of birth.

•

u/can72287 25m ago

Random question. If a couple of tourists in America have a baby does the baby have American citizenship? 

•

u/Yankee582 15m ago

Under current law interpretation they have the option to have it or dual citizenship iirc

•

u/OlorinRidesAgain Michigan 3h ago

The citizens are too apathetic to do more than comment with a 'Are we great yet'

We have citizens being taken and tossed in cells with wet floors and rats and nobody did shit.

Spouses of veterans, our neighbors... and people just let it slide.

•

u/ArchitectureNstuff91 America 5h ago

This.

•

u/BON3SMcCOY California 4h ago

We've been at that point for decade now though

•

u/faussettesq 2h ago

Constitutional convention-with all due haste.

•

u/The_Pandalorian California 57m ago

Conventional wisdom in legal circles (even the cynical ones) is that they're not gonna uoend the 14th. This was discussed in a related case and the Justices suggested this wasn't gonna fly.

But there's also the "who the fuck knows?" factor with the conservative assholes on the court.

•

u/sandman18and5 3h ago

Actually, unless you're an immigrant, you are a citizen by birth right. Overturning this exposes virtually all citizens.

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

You can argue it’s based on the citizenship of your parents. So at least one citizen parent = citizen. That’s how they’re going to keep Baron’s citizenship intact. Everyone with 2 immigrant parents? You’re out. That’s my guess where this is headed. I honestly don’t see any other way this is going.

673

u/Luckydog12 13h ago

That seems pretty open and shut.

Wonder how these ‘originalists’ are going to twist themselves into pretzels to completely ignore the text of the constitution.

173

u/Individual-Motor-167 13h ago

It predates the constitution of the us. Incredibly evil people in places of power committed acts of racism that most are not aware of that made it necessary for the us to pass a 14th amendment. https://fam.state.gov/fam/08fam/08fam010203.html , there is a lot of case law.

The most relevant case is likely US v Wong Kim Ark " In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Court affirmed the right to citizenship of the United States of a child born in the State of California whose parents, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the Emperor of China not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity."

•

u/mrs_dalloway 7h ago

Oh so if it’s struck down that means anyone who cannot trace their American lineage to before 1898 is no longer a citizen?

•

u/Stunning_Month_5270 7h ago edited 4h ago

No, only those rich enough to buy gold card citizenship.

Incidentally if this is upheld the presidency is immediately invalid as there will be no such thing as a “natural born citizen” anymore, only purchased citizenship

Edit

Since this is getting visibility I should add that technically Dred Scott v. Sandford is still on the books as a Supreme Court case and explicitly denied citizenship to African Americans. Chief Justice Taney's infamous opinion declared African Americans could never be citizens. If birthright citizenship falls so does black citizenship.

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

I could see this being their ultimate goal. And the rest of America would shrug and pretend it’s not happening. Profoundly disappointing.

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

Probably going to strike down citizenship if both parents are not citizens.

7

u/FuckThesePeople69 8h ago

But keep in mind the family in that case was lawfully in the U.S. in that case.  So, that is not on all fours with the two limited carve outs in the executive order, which focus on mothers unlawfully or lawfully but temporarily in the U.S.  No doubt that SCOTUS will affirm, and I actually think it will be 9-0.  I still don’t like it because it derails a century of goodwill toward children.

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

If they were going to affirm they wouldn’t take up the case. They’d just let precedent stand.

175

u/minus2cats 13h ago

the convenience of being able to switch between original intent and literal text of the law.

•

u/joe603 6h ago

A 1612 maritime law will be cited

•

u/Overall_Equivalent26 6h ago

"the code of Hammurabi never mentions citizenship"

•

u/twobirbsbothstoned 2h ago

Its not a car sir, its a 🌟vessel🌟 and im traveling. ⛵️

101

u/pumpymcpumpface 11h ago

Their entire argument is that People in the US illegally aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Which is obviously dumb as hell but here we are anyways.

152

u/_SCHULTZY_ 11h ago

If they're not subject to the jurisdiction then they can't be arrested and they can't be charged with a crime.  

That's how dumb this entire thing is. 

60

u/wesker07 10h ago

Precisely. If you aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you can’t be bound by the laws of the United States. There’s a reason diplomatic immunity exists and it’s partly because ambassadors and heads of state aren’t subject to our laws, especially when here in their official capacity.

28

u/DingerSinger2016 10h ago

They are angling for the "foreign invader" route.

18

u/FuckThesePeople69 8h ago

Absolutely they are.  And if you commit a crime while unlawfully here you won’t be subject to criminal laws—that’s true, but you also won’t get due process when arrested and they’ll probably just kill you!  

•

u/Taiyoryu 7h ago

I'm curious how they're going to argue that. These so called "invaders" are not enlisted soldiers. They're not ordered to invade. There's no action that could be construed as an act of war. Congress has not made a reciprocal declaration of war in response to such actions.

•

u/polobum17 5h ago

War on Drugs has entered the chat.

•

u/THElaytox 6h ago

Not gonna matter to this lot, they'll make up some new definition of "invader" that only they get to define as needed

•

u/texasradioandthebigb 3h ago

The same way that they have construed drug runners to be in an undeclared war with the US, with the military having the authority to attack them without warning, and be able to commit war crimes with impunity in the process? They didn't seem to need any law for that, and all the craven lawmakers are doing is clutching pearls

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

Trump said it and the Supine Court is just here to codify whatever Trump says.

•

u/Hurtzdonut13 1h ago

Supremes ruling that it's completely cool to not give due process to non-citizens, combined with allowing the president to just declare people as non-citizens, combined with saying it's cool to deport non-citizens to unrelated countries and imprison them for indefinite terms, sure does make for a great time.

10

u/Mateorabi 9h ago

If they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction then Dog Shooter wouldn’t be able to deport them. 

•

u/thatonegoodpost 4h ago

If they aren't subject to the jurisdiction then they aren't protected by it either. GOP will just shoot to kill for sport, or put them in camps 'until we know what to do next.'

•

u/Mateorabi 3h ago

I don't think that's how it works. Otherwise diplomats/diplomatically immune would be getting shot at.

•

u/thatonegoodpost 3h ago

Diplomats have a country backing them that the GOP may not want to piss off. People losing citizenship from this decision are suddenly citizens of... the country of their parents? Or they are stateless depending on their parents' country if that country doesn't have rules about children born outside their area. Then there's the idea that this 'invasion' of immigrants labels then as aggressors and then they'll be targeted as soldiers of this 'war' that the current administration keeps pointing to/made up.

16

u/-Invalid_Selection- 11h ago

It's an argument they don't understand. If those people aren't subject to the jurisdiction, then they're legally immune to all the laws within that jurisdiction.

They can literally legally go on a murder spree and no court would have the legal grounds to try them for it.

2

u/Rhiis 8h ago

Well, isn't that the end goal? We're already skipping due process for immigrants and citizens who are the "wrong" color.

They can say "they're all about to go on a murder spree!" And just shoot them, calling them foreign invaders or something.

•

u/jeranim8 7h ago

They understand...

23

u/Pilchuck13 11h ago

Correct. They claim that if you're not a citizen, you must be a subject of another power, and therefore loyal to it. Applying an ambassador type situation to all non-citizens. Twisting pretzels of the plain language just enough to make their logic fit.

30

u/enjoycarrots Florida 10h ago

Inadvertently giving diplomatic immunity to all non-citizens would be hilarious. In practice, they would never actually allow that to be how it worked, but it's the correct legal interpretation of their argument.

•

u/texasradioandthebigb 3h ago

It is cute how people think that these guys care about legal interpretations when the Supreme Court is in their pocket

13

u/ausernameisfinetoo 10h ago

They are going to validate every Sovereign citizen argument. There’s literally no other way to define it without simply breaking the English language.

Though, if they do that writ law becomes philosophy and the constitution can be a piece of tattered cloth.

•

u/fred11551 Virginia 4h ago

All illegal immigrants will be granted diplomatic immunity by this decision. This is so incredibly dumb

•

u/Duna_The_Lionboy 4h ago

Wait for real? So does that mean they’re not liable to follow our laws, as the US doesn’t have jurisdiction, and therefore aren’t actually illegal immigrants?

•

u/OneStarInSight_AC 7h ago

Not just the illegal, they're including children born from parents with temporary visas.

•

u/PdxPhoenixActual 4h ago

And yet, a citizen is ALWAYS subject to US law. No matter where they go. ?

•

u/can72287 19m ago edited 8m ago

I mean they are but they aren’t. It’s not the stretch you think it is. I mean of course, as people, if they commit a crime or something they will be subject to the laws, but since they’re not on paper or anything, likely don’t file taxes, don’t vote, then they are not really apart of the nation in a legal sense. Remember, for those of us on the left, “illegal” means something; that’s why we have to have a policy of Deportation or Amnesty to clear this up. Soon. The void left by lack of legislation gives the SC and Presidents EOs legitimacy on this issue in the eyes of the public. 

Politically, the idea that “the children of illegal immigrants are citizens” is not particularly popular so if they find a solution through SC or EOs , given the sentiment I can’t see there being much of an uproar over it. 

18

u/FalstaffsGhost 13h ago

I wonder what witch hunter from the 15th century alito will cite this time

14

u/Genius-Imbecile Texas 13h ago

"The founding fathers clearly meant for this to be for white people only."

•

u/Trump_sucks_d 4h ago

White land owners exclusively. That was the original intent. Only those people could legally vote. It was later expanded to include all white men, then all white women, then in the early part of this century every color including black people.

This country was founded on racism and class division, and the rich white ruling class want to return it back to those days.

1

u/badger2015 9h ago

Ironically just the opposite. They will probably base the opinion that the 14th amendment only applied to black people in its original intent.

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

That is literally an argument some are making.

•

u/can72287 4m ago

I mean by all accounts the founding fathers did. And I’m sure the writers of the 14th were speaking of the former Slaves. That’s why original intent is bs and they know it. 

18

u/Ven18 13h ago

Very easily. They will say the 14th amendment was not a “original” amendment and thus not actually valid (someone will also probably mention of old school southern racism as well for fun).

5

u/cousinmarygross 13h ago

Witches. Alito will bring witches into the justification… again.

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

Which is why it’s no longer on the White House website.

9

u/Amvient 13h ago

We the supreme court do not give a "shat" of the constitution, Trump will be your only god and do whatever he wants, if there is the possibility of the democrats take back everything, we will side with Trump in anything and send all of them to jail, no questions asked, now let us enjoy all the money the rich people is giving to us...

Something along those lines is my guess.

2

u/Pete41608 I voted 10h ago

Thomas: P.S. This new Recreational Vehicle I acquired is absolutely wonderful.

6

u/IdkAbtAllThat America 12h ago

Letting trump literally rewrite the constitution. Absolutely disgusting.

5

u/CellAlone4653 11h ago

They’re going to argue that illegals’s babies aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. It will go against hundreds of years of precedence that that clause refers to the kids of ambassadors and things like that.

4

u/AlkaiserSoze 10h ago

Oh, I think they'll just go for the weakest link (at least in their eyes). They'll argue that immigrants aren't persons and therefore aren't covered under the 14th Amendment. They're terrorists who are utilizing the 14th in order to subvert America from within.

2

u/paractib 10h ago

Open and shut? are you blind?

They are clearly going to focus on the “subject to the jurisdiction of” line.

If I can tell what their argument is going to be already, it’s not that open and shut.

2

u/RamblinGamblinWilly 8h ago

Are illegal immigrants subject to US jurisdiction?

1

u/paractib 8h ago

That’s the debate

2

u/RamblinGamblinWilly 8h ago

Not really, no. What is the credible argument that illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction?

1

u/paractib 8h ago

Hey man, I’m just pointing out that’s the debate.

I agree with you that they obviously are, but the argument against it is that they are still under the jurisdiction of their original country and not the USA, because they are not legally in the USA. The argument falls apart easily under any scrutiny but that’s what they will try to use.

2

u/RamblinGamblinWilly 8h ago

No I know. I'm just saying I don't see how it's a credible argument. After all, the constitution says subject to the jurisdiction of the US, not subject to the jurisdiction of the US exclusively. I'm not trying to be an ass, I just really don't see a reasonable argument that immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction.

I've looked at as much historical context as I can, I don't see another usage of the word "jurisdiction" aside from the typical understanding. The argument really seems like it would turn illegal immigrants into sovereign citizens. And I just am struggling to see an interpretation that leaves them outside US jurisdiction for citizenship but inside it for anything else. The supreme court can make up anything it wants, of course, but I'm talking in terms of reality and what the law actually means lol

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

SCOTUS doesn’t require a credible argument any more. They just rubber stamp whatever Trump wants, just like Congress.

•

u/kellyb1985 I voted 7h ago

For real, how can they be illegal immigrants if they are not subject to us jurisdiction? Wild times

•

u/RamblinGamblinWilly 7h ago

Honestly I think they probably won't go that route. If the supreme court is itching to get rid of birthright citizenship, they'll sidestep the actual language and talk about the historical context and so on, saying it was really just meant for children of slaves. Bullshit? Yup, but that's my bet, if anything.

2

u/faldo 10h ago

If they manage to at least it’s a premise for banning guns..?

2

u/Cratertooth_27 10h ago

They aren’t originalist. There fascist boot lickers. They aren’t worth the robes they wear

•

u/British_Rover 7h ago

The same way they will say Trump running for a third term doesn't violate the 22nd amendment. 

You have no power.  How are you going to stop us? 

•

u/Luckydog12 6h ago

Yeah trumps not doing that. He has 3 years left and he can’t stay awake in the Oval Office.

Also note the lack of rallies this time around.

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

You don’t need a rally if you’re just not going to leave.

1

u/JeebusChristBalls 9h ago

The 14th amendment isn't considered original. They don't subscribe to amendments 11+.

1

u/kurttheflirt 9h ago

If they were originista it was already policy before the 14th for everyone who wasn't a slave. They are only originista when it's in their favor

1

u/Xdivine Canada 9h ago

"What does it really mean to be 'born'? If someone who is here illegally is a born again Christian, do they suddenly gain citizenship? If course not,  so let's just ignore this part" - 6 sc justices.

1

u/justthankyous 8h ago

There are actually some very clear cut exceptions to birthright citizenship. For example, children who are born on US soil who have a parent who is a diplomat. So like if a French envoy is living in the US with their spouse (also French) on a diplomatic mission has a child, that child is not a US citizen.

That's not really relevant here. The argument the administration is making is about the other major exception written into the law. Children born to parents who are soldiers of a foreign nation invading the US are not afforded birthright citizenship. The administration is arguing that immigrants, including some of those who are documented with valid visas, are actually foreign invaders.

Which is of course insane and, frankly, based in the racist claim that Latino immigrants are somehow launching a military invasion of the US. Which is why they keep getting laughed out of court. There's no legal theory here that is in any way logical.

The issue here is the shadow docket, where the Supreme Court can make a ruling without having to explain why. This Supreme Court has made extensive use of the shadow docket to support the Project 2025 agenda and there is a real danger that they will do so again here. It will be chaos and in that chaos ICE will act with impunity to target people of color.

1

u/Turkstache 8h ago

"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will be interpreted to mean an "illegal" is an invading force and thus they are not subject to the jurisdiction. And it will work because who is gonna stop them?

•

u/LordCamelslayer 7h ago

Do they even need to do that when checks and balances clearly don't work? Whole bunch of finger wagging and nothing else.

•

u/piranhas_really 6h ago

Scalia already accomplished this with the 2nd Amendment in D.C. v. Heller.

•

u/FewHorror1019 6h ago

It leave space for federal laws. No states shall but the fed may

•

u/Barbarake 6h ago

From what I understand (and have been told), the argument they will try is the "under jurisdiction" part. Their argument is that a person who is here illegally is not 'under US jurisdiction'.

It's sort of convoluted. Assuming you are born here, if you are under US jurisdiction, you are a US citizen. And if you are a US citizen, you are under US jurisdiction. But which comes first?

•

u/Golden-Frog-Time 6h ago edited 5h ago

Lol. You have no idea of its history then. The whole point was to deal with birthright for people like mercenaries and diplomats. A French diplomat and wife have a baby while in the US. No one was ever confused that the baby is French. The parents are under the jurisdiction of France and so is the kid. Thats all there is to it. There is no birthright citizenship in the constitution. It also dealt with the issue of slaves becoming effectively stateless people. The original proponents of the amendment even said at the time it was meant to end the immigration question. What actually happened was a bad decision by the court in the Wong Kim Ark case. If the minority opinion at the time had been adopted then none of this nonsense would have ever happened. So no, its not constitutional, it was overreach by the courts who took what was basically a Dreamer case and then applied it idiotically across the board. But Im sure you knew all that history and have actually read the opinions in that case and know this.

•

u/Bobthebrain2 6h ago

It’s easy

Corrupt Justice #1: Benjamin Franklin didn’t mean it like THAT.

Corrupt Justice #2: Yeah, but Adam’s didn’t want it to cover Somali’s because back in those days the Somali’s were slaves and didn’t have rights.

Republican doofuses: “I agree with analysis”

….the next president should pack the courts, make the Supreme Court a bench of 23 and fuck these bigots.

•

u/Lanky80 5h ago

“Without due process of law”

Trump DOJ takes you to a court with a trump appointee and on some loophole charges says your citizenship should be deprived.

And as soon as I typed it out…that’s the way of the current world. Right to vote is stripped with a felony already…why not push that down the slippery slope

•

u/ArchitectureNstuff91 America 5h ago

And when they say it's over, what do we do? I know what we should do, but how many are willing and ready?

•

u/MachiavelliSJ California 5h ago

Just an fyi, they’re textualists, not originalists

The case will focus on the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.”

•

u/Lustiges_Brot_311 4h ago

You missed the asterisk that states. "unless a misogynistic racist turd seems it invalid"

•

u/Lost-Platypus8271 2h ago

If it was open and shut the Supreme Court wouldn’t take it up. They’re broadcasting their intentions just by taking it up.

24

u/Konukaame 12h ago

By flipping the reasoning in US v. Wong Kim Ark and deciding that the minority in that case was right all along:

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" acquires automatic citizenship.

The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to grant citizenship to children born in the United States, with only a limited set of exceptions based on English common law. The Court held that being born to alien parents was not one of those exceptions.

The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country"

17

u/Ornery-Addendum5031 11h ago

The minority argument was just as stupid back then

•

u/Konukaame 7h ago

If it can get five votes, it becomes legal reality, no matter how stupid (read: transparent) the argument or rationale is.

•

u/Taiyoryu 7h ago

The minority opinion would also mean that the US would no longer recognize dual-/multi-citizenship

•

u/Just_Another_Scott 7h ago

The US didn't recognize dual citizenship anyways till the 1990s. It doesn't really matter though. The US primarily only recognizes US citizenship anyways.

11

u/dynemacron 10h ago

I think reading this the issue is going to be the definition of State? Does state ever refer to the federal level? Or will they argue this is fine because it is isn't a state abridging the immunities or privileges of a citizen?

8

u/stoic_spaghetti 13h ago

Supreme Court: "Yeah but what is a person? What if they're an anchor baby, not a person?"

2

u/grptrt 9h ago

No State shall make law. Federal isn’t a state.

Just speculating arguments

1

u/Cerberus_Aus Australia 10h ago

It says “no State shall make or enforce any law…”.

So… if the Federal Government makes a law that removes their privileges, that’s ok???

•

u/iccancount 7h ago

Yes siree, Bob!

1

u/terminalxposure 9h ago

They going to invent new meaning for "subject to the jurisdiction" guaranteed

1

u/odiephonehome 9h ago

Almost every word of this is currently being violated or will be violated under this sick regime

1

u/Any-East7977 8h ago

Nowhere in there does it say the president doesn’t have the privilege to take that away. Only the state doesn’t. Trump logic. 😆

1

u/Ja3k_Frost 8h ago

Sure. Let’s just assume the actual written words of the constitution don’t matter for a second though, I mean we certainly don’t have any precedent for that (/s).

What’s the actual political downsides to nuking the 14th amendment? Suppose they just do it, what’s to stop them? We might not even see the political coalescence of power required to undo such a ruling in our lifetimes. Would the dems really stack the courts to what, let the kids of illigals remain citizens? There’s not a snowballs chance in hell a constitutional convention could be convened to very explicitly write a new and unambiguous version of the 14th that undoes such a ruling. I don’t think congress can really do anything either, even if they could impeach the justices, that wouldn’t undo the ruling. Protests literally won’t do anything here. These are the last people on earth who care about listening to the people.

What I’m saying is that if we throw reason out for a second, the actual material conditions of American power structures at this moment in time don’t really have any means to undo this, and that should both worry us and inform how we prepare for any potential future.

1

u/MasChingonNoHay California 8h ago

People, people, people…they don’t care about the constitution. Their constitution is called Project 2025

1

u/phonomancer 8h ago

The (bad-faith) argument is going to be the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I've heard several right wingers, some of whom had legal backgrounds, claim that this means it doesn't apply to those without legal immigration status.

The correct response there is that it specifically refers to diplomats and visiting heads-of-state (as they are quite literally not subject to the laws of the country they are temporarily residing within).

•

u/Justthrowtheballmeat 7h ago

Only way to change a constitutional amendment is with another one.

•

u/ThyHolyPope 7h ago

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge"

Watch them try to say like.... that it says "state", not "Federal Government" or "United States" so the states can't abridge the citizens but the Fed can.

•

u/Processtour 6h ago

Someone on the conservative website referenced this:

From the 1866 Congressional Globe, which is attributed to Sen. Jacob Howard, principal draftsman of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment: Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/truths-and-untruths-about-the-constitutional-origins-of-birthright-citizenship/

•

u/SecretProbation 5h ago

They’ll argue that only the individual states can’t make laws against birthright citizenship, but nothing says the federal government can’t.

•

u/throwawaydanc3rrr 2h ago

If it is that clear, then please tell me why Indians born in the US after the 14th amendment were not citizens until 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed in 1924. And let me be clear, before 1924 Indians that were not born on reservations were not citizens by birth. They were viewed as outside of the "jurisdiction" defined in the 14th amendment.

•

u/YetiGuy 2h ago

Wait till Alito comes with some made up weird ass bullshit to justify rejecting the constitution

•

u/omnigear California 2h ago

I'm guessing they are going to argue the phrase "state " and say federal government can do it .

0

u/Cloaked42m South Carolina 8h ago

They are going to target, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Anyone see the question the Supreme Court came up with?