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.
Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 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.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I don’t get how you square those two together.
Probably with “The founders only wanted what I think they wanted, despite their explicit instructions”
Interpreting old texts to match their own personal beliefs is what Christo fascists are best at.
And they’re not even fucking good at that. The only thing they truly excel at is spreading hate.
Look no further than the dissent to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (when the Supreme Court ruled that the passage you cited grants citizenship by birthright), written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the mastermind behind such legal opinions as:
- Racial segregation is completely legal (Plessy v. Ferguson)
- States can’t regulate workplace conditions or enact maximum working hours laws (Lochner v. New York)
- Income tax is unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust)
Anyway, he wrote:
the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute
and
[Birthright citizenship means] the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
So in other words, he was willing to rule that the constitution is optional as long as you are using it against undesirable races in order to get his way.
unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute
It absolutely does! That’s the point!
You can be born abroad to US citizens and still be a citizen.
You and I know this because we paid attention in high school. The Chief Justice does not.
You just lie about the second part and have a government full of sycophants and a corrupt Supreme Court that declares that everything you do is by definition legal.
It’s why they used the language of “invaders”. 14th amendment doesn’t provide protection for invaders. This is the first step in working around the constitution.
Don’t worry, the bootlickers in the Supreme Court will find the dumbest argument you ever heard to rationalize it.
Oaths and honor don’t matter to the corrupt and degenerate.
I’m sure Scalia will find some 15th century witch burner who’s writings justify it somehow.
Only the second one matters
Lol, neither of them matter, bud.
SCOTUS: well you see here, I can’t seem to find my reading glasses between these stacks of cash… ah yes here they are, it’s legal because we say so.
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?
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?
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”.
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…
Say what you will about Trump, but he sure knows how to get us to learn about the Constitution!
That phase seems to say you have to be solely subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I.e., that you couldn’t also later claim to be a citizen (or subject to laws of) another nation.
At least that’s what an article I read said, which wasn’t written in direct response to this EO.
It doesn’t say solely. If they meant solely they would have written that. It’s very obvious it means if you have to obey the laws then you count. Diplomats with immunity don’t count.
Edit: As further evidence, you’re subject to state laws as well, not just the United States laws.
Welcome to US constitutional law!
So, why did they write it?
I said in the comment above, it’s to not include people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Diplomats with immunity, for example. It’s reasonable obvious. You really have to try to stretch things to make it apply to immigrants who are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Yes, that was the opinion of the Supreme Court in 1898. This is a different SC and, as we’ve already seen, are perfectly willing to overturn precedent. From the dissent:
In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native gov.
My point is… you don’t actually know why they wrote that clause because it’s not entirely clear and, thus, subject to further debate at this new court.
The laws don’t have to make sense as long as they’re in power.
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.
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.
Don’t you worry, this will also be retroactive! People will have their American citizenship taken away.
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.
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.
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.
with critics calling it unconstitutional.
You don’t need to be a critic to call it unconstitutional. It is, as it contradicts an Amendment.
This exactly. It is COMPLETELY unconstitutional in the very definition of the word.
No no no cmon, yesterday, the president made an oath to uphold and protect the constitution. You’re telling me he was lying to us?!
For the second time
If only there was a document that prevented that
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/
Oh wait, it’s gone!
Fuck, lots to unpack here.
Sooooo, that actually is his official portrait? I thought someone posted it as satire. At least he’s not hiding that he’s the villain.
“America we’re back” is his slogan? That and the pic looks after school special.
The loading screen icon is the White House – was it always? Because as a Canadian all it invokes in me is the memory of us burning it down.
Did the constitution page get remapped? Or is it gone, gone?
So I was just thinking they were being cheeky and posted a fake URL that would show an error from the Whitehouse website, but I Googled “whitehouse website constitution” and google has a link to their page on the constitution… It’s gone.
they know what they’re doing. it’s to generate noise to confuse search terms about executive order effects in such a way that’s easy for maga to deflect (“well they took it down by accident, you’re triggered”)
This is what comes up when I search “white house website constitution”
The link works for me, but is curiously still tagged as the Biden Whitehouse.https://www.archives.gov/ is like archive.org but for the US Government.
It would make sense that they archive government websites
Donald Trump is Nicolas Cage in a wig and orange makeup, confirmed.
argues against the 14th Amendment
critics calling it unconstitutional
Uuuuh yeaaah, no shit…
Can’t wait for the Right to recognize that if they normalize nullifying constitutional amendments with executive orders, the next Democrat president can just use that to nullify the 2nd Amendment that they’re so terribly fond of.
Of course that assumes there will be another election some day.
next Democrat president
LOL. Fascism is here. There will never be another Democrat president.
Fascism is here in part because Democrat presidents aren’t actually on a different team.
Trying to argue “both sides” on an article about a Republican trying to overturn the Constitution with an executive order has got to be embarrassing.
You mean like an article on the Dems in congress overturning the US Constitution via votes?
That’s not what this is though.
No, but the PATRIOT Act was…
Passed with more Republican votes than Democrat votes in both houses of Congress and a Republican president.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
Ah the both parties are the same guy. Always here, never correct, never helpful.
I get the impression is that in your mind there are only two teams: people who agree with you 100% and everyone else.
that assumes that the Dems will actually do literally anything at all.
Democrat president can just use that to nullify the 2nd Amendment
Can, but won’t, because that would be “going low” and “we aren’t like them”
You know, like cowardly dipshits
Yeah, if they let him start dictating constitutional amendments by executive order there definitely won’t be a next election.
The next election may come after a civil war,.but there will be a next election.
I don’t think that’s a problem. Even if they didn’t plan to begin their dictatorship now, Biden had immunity and didn’t do a goddamn thing with it. Democrats don’t do anything.
POTUS immunity wasn’t a blanket grant of absolute power. It was just the same BS immunity that cops get for what they do as cops.
Dunno if you noticed, but cops pretty much have a blanket grant of absolute power…
Close to it, maybe, but police can’t do a whole bunch of things. Like hold you forever without trial, or arbitrarily rape people with no consequences. Or shoot judges whose rulings they don’t like
What they get away with is outrageous, but it’s not quite "absolute power "
Like hold you forever without trial
lol, k. If you live within 100 miles of an international port of entry, your rights are suspended as soon as anyone says “National security”.
or arbitrarily rape people with no consequences
Really?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/sarah-everard-cops-sexually-assault-people/
And how infrequently rape is even charged, yes, they can, and do.
Or shoot judges whose rulings they don’t like
Sure they can.
Cops are the only ones with guns in courthouses!
And if ordered to do so, by the president, nothing to be done.
What they get away with is outrageous, but it’s not quite "absolute power "
For practical purposes, it is. Their only constraint is to not attack the ruling class.
Are you really trying to round up from “suck” to “tyranny”?
If you’re not white, or cis, it’s already been “tyrrany”.
the next Democrat president
lol, cute of you to think there will be a “next election”.
Of course that assumes there will be another election some day.
Yeah I addressed that.
Doesn’t work because the legal body is republican controlled. Only republican choices are above the law.
states should arrest border patrol agents attempting this.
Democrats should threaten to charge anyone attempting this of human trafficking.
I think recent events have shown Democrats are incapable of helping anybody but themselves. And even then they’re shit.
Some of the state parties have considerably more teeth.
Except for the liberal bubbles in Houston and Dallas, I’m pretty sure most Texans are pretty gung-ho in favor of this and will be giving border patrol agents free lunches. No ICE, DHS, or Border Patrol agents will be getting arrest by the southern states
You’re forgetting Arizona and California. Arizona’s Blue Wave is particularly left leaning too…
supposing democrats wake up a little (fat chance) federal democrats should say that they will ensure any person that attempts to act outaside the guardrails of the constitution will be charged with crimes when they regain power.
just now realizing everything I have done in my life in trying to contribute less plastic and waste less is not even 0.00001% compared to the environmental damage these executive orders are going to do.
Take off your individualism hat and put on your collective hat. Group actions make a difference.
Both things can be true.
OP can be doing good.
And potus can be doing shit and running rough-shod over the working class
The “you are personally responsible for climate change” was always a scam. It is the big corporations that are responsible.
I’m upset that I’m too ingrained in my ways to become a greedy, racist, sexist, boorish asshole because those guys are gonna have an amazing four years.
Love how he swore an oath to uphold the constitution then a few hours later signs and executive order that goes against it
Just like he has one executive order for energy production and another to pause offshore wind farm leases
Stay tuned for a new constitutional crisis every day!
Just one per day? I’m expecting at least two.
We can finally deport Ted Cruz. Pack your bags bitch!
No. Keep him. Kevin o’leary too.
Only if you promise to make the entire US your 14th Province, or no deal!
I thought O’Leary was Canadian? Did he emigrate to the U.S.?
We don’t want him back
Constitutional lawyers are going to be making a fortune over the next 4 years. Fuck you America. Just fuck y’all.
The payload
Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:
(1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or
(2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.
Which is absolutely ridiculous. In the first case if they aren’t subject to your jurisdiction then you cannot deport them. And in the second they would not need a visa. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t make them subject to our laws without them being subject to the United State’s Jurisdiction.
That’s not true. Even diplomats, who this clause was written for, can be expelled from the country.
Even that’s a limited form of jurisdiction. Managed by treaty, the same level as the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has been bought and paid for by right wing special interest organizations like the Heritage Foundation. This obviously illegal order will be upheld. At best, there might be a single right wing judge that crosses to make it a 4-vote dissent.
The rule of law is dead in America. This has been planned since the Painter memo in 1971. The fascist takeover is happening.
This commenter is correct, this is largely the result of the work of the Heritage Foundation and it’s been a half-century in the making. This would be the appropriate time to arm yourselves (get a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Start networking with like-minded people in your communities. Learn basic first aid, you just need to know how to stabilize someone. Learn to fix things, grow food, be more self-reliant. The police will not protect us and things may get very bad in the coming decade.
How does this work? Aren’t most people citizens because of birthright citizenship?
My ancestors certainly didn’t do the proper paperwork before landing here.
Yes if you aren’t Native American, your family probably gained citizenship through birthright.
You can be a natural born citizen either by being here when born or by being born to a US citizen. The order challenges the former.
I saw people accurately predict that they would hang such an order on the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” portion. The argument was predicted to be that a mother on US soil unlawfully is excluded by that clause (though they are clearly subject to the jurisdiction despite being unlawful, this was the guess).
They are trying to push it even further by claiming people here legally also don’t get the right, and there’s not even a hint of rationalization to claim that somehow people legally here are not “subject to the jurisdiction”.
If pregnant women from other countries aren’t under the jurisdiction of the United States I’ve got an idea for the perfect crime
We aren’t far from Starship Troopers’ '“Service guarantees citizenship.”
https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-military-service
We’re really not.
Right now just being born on US soil automatically makes you a US citizen, regardless of if your parents are or not. It works that way in a lot of countries. I knew a guy in school who’s parents are both British, his mother started giving birth to him on a plane so they did an emergency landing in Cyprus. Due to being born there he has both British and Cypriot citizenship.
This change would stop that happening in the US. Your parents would have to be citizens for you to become one as soon as you’re born.
The 14th amendment says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”
The court has read that as: “All persons born” OR " naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Trump wants it to read: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof "
His take: Anchor babies are not “Subject to the jurisdiction” and thus are not citizens.
All we have to do is ask what happens to a “migrant” baby left at a fire house.
Straight to the state care system?
Oh wow.
That doesn’t clear too much for me. Are you saying that everybody needs to go through the citizenship process and take the citizenship test? I’m not sure what the part about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means exactly.
Neither does Trump
