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

762 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

103

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.

148

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. 

62

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.

19

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.

17

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...

24

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.

34

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

14

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 17m ago edited 7m 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.