Summary

Donald Trump signed an executive order to challenge birthright citizenship, targeting children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S.

The order argues against the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship for those born on U.S. soil.

It bars federal agencies from recognizing birthright citizenship and imposes a 30-day waiting period for enforcement.

The order is expected to face significant legal challenges, with critics calling it unconstitutional.

  • Cool_Name@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    The heritage foundation has an argument prepared for the inevitable supreme court case. I think it’s shit, even for them, but SCOTUS seems like they’ll go along with anything.

    Their argument hinges on the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction there of” claiming that this somehow excludes non-citizens. Accepting this argument would have the weird implication of saying that non-citizens in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So… how do other laws apply to them? How could they be charged with working or entering the US illegally?

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      84
      ·
      12 days ago

      That clause was targeted at, and is still targeted at, foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity. If you can’t be compelled to to pay your parking tickets because you put the little flag on your car, then your babies also don’t get to be Americans. Easy.

      If your typical non-little-flag-on-car undocumented immigrants are really “not subject to the jurisdiction,” then how can you arrest them for all of the horrible crimes they are allegedly committing?

      • Mirshe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        12 days ago

        The answer there is easy and horrifying. Since they’re “not subject to” the law of the US, you can basically declare them outlaws. The od-school use of the term, basically meaning “this person exists outside of legal sight, so anything that happens to them is entirely legal because they don’t exist as a legal entity in our sight.”

        The end game is open season on anyone who “looks illegal”.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 days ago

        I suspect that was probably not as much on their mind as the prospect of a US territory temporarily occupied by a foreign military. I fully anticipated that they would attempt this comparison (despite clearly subjecting illegal immigrants to the jurisdiction). Even if it is incorrect, I could at least see them making that attempt.

        I’m surprised that they are trying to extend this to include people legally in the US, with every legal basis to be here and no whiff of any vaguely dubious relationship with jurisdiction…

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 days ago

      Even then, they’ll likely rig the 2026 elections, to get a supermajority, so they can just replace the constitution with one that is 100% compatible with christofascism.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        Unless they completely throw out the Constitution they still have to let the states run elections. And the States generally aren’t interested in rigging their elections.

      • nutcase2690@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        I was worried about this and had to check, the executive order text has a section which states it only applies to those born 30 days after the signing of the EO. Who knows what the fuck the supreme court will extrapolate that to, though.

    • MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 days ago

      What would that mean for foreigners detained for crimes committed outside the USA? We had a bunch of people in Guantanamo at one point who met those circumstances.

    • thomas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      I can’t see how this would work. The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part refers to the children born in the US, not their parents. But don’t quote me on this, I’m not a lawyer.