this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
580 points (98.5% liked)

News

23627 readers
2295 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump announced plans to end birthright citizenship via executive action, despite its constitutional basis in the 14th Amendment.

He also outlined a mass deportation policy, starting with undocumented immigrants who committed crimes and potentially expanding to mixed-status families, who could face deportation as a unit.

Trump said he wants to avoid family separations but left the decision to families.

While doubling down on immigration restrictions, Trump expressed willingness to work with Democrats to create protections for Dreamers under DACA, citing their long-standing integration into U.S. society.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I am not a lawyer, this is my interpretation of the situation.

So heres what I think will happen.

Birthright citizenship will not be completely gone.

To recap, 14th Amendment, Section1 says:

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.

What will most likely happen is the DoJ under trump will take it to the supreme court, then the 6 conservatives will rule that unauthorized immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", so therefore their children do not get citizenship at birth. Maybe this is retroactive, maybe it applies from then on, I don't know.

But thats the most likely scenario.

Because we had a very conservative court back in the 1898 (remember, black people in this era couldn't even vote in southern states) that ruled that (United States v. Wong Kim Ark)

a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.

So I doubt this supreme court is more conservative than a 1898 supreme court so they most likely are not overturning that.

Basically, that court ruled that children of permanent residents have birthright citizenship, but never ruled on whether children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship. This 6-3 supreme court is gonna answer that. Which is gonna be a no, unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

More likely, a lower court shoots it down, and there's no basis for an appeals court to do anything different. They tweak it and try again. That one also fails. Try again.

Eventually, they get something that threads the needle. This is how the "Muslim ban" went.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, the supreme court could always pull out the "Original Jurisdiction" BS and take it straight there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There are two other factors at work:

  • A bunch of conservative-related businesses know what a clusterfuck it will be for their bottom line; that will push the Supreme Court to pretend there's no issue here
  • The Supreme Court can only take so many cases at a time

Even if we assume they're just going to bypass the usual ladder up the federal court system, they can't do that on everything just as a practical matter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I enjoy the notion that they would argue that undocumented immigrants are not subject to US law in the fashion that diplomats aren't subject to US law, since that would effectively prevent anything except deportation as a punishment for crimes.
"Your children can't be citizens, but you can murder with impunity until we ask you to leave".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Lol dont give them ideas. They could treat them as "Enemy Aliens", putting them in guantanamo.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I concur with your interpretation. But as for your final line, I’m not sure why this interpretation is unfortunate. We need to streamline and overhaul the immigration process for sure, but why is encouraging unregulated immigration a good thing?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I say unfortunately because there could be problems with a child of an undocumented immigrant that is born and grew up in the US for their entire life, then suddenly losing their citizenship because of a court decision.

Maybe if the decision did not apply retroactively, then I'd might be okay with it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Oh yeah, that’s definitely a bad outcome, I agree. Thankfully retroactive laws seem to be much harder to pass.