We’re at a point where imo the only way to fix things here is captial C and captial D Civil Disobedience. At risk of getting put on a list and deported or smth I’m not gonna go into specifics but I’m sure you can figure out what I’m getting at.
Can the supreme court just straight up ignore the constitution, under the constitution?
Surely no, right?
Theoretically they are supposed to have an adversarial relationship with the Congress and the president, but…
I hate how we (Australia) are so closely tied to a country that is speed-running the late Roman republic.
It’s all there, a “democratic” system run by the wealthy, for the wealthy, physical intimidation of voters and politicians, a rigged voting system, ignoring the law for the benefit of a populist leader promising to deliver the masses from the corrupt establishment.
How many times per day does your boyfriend think of the Roman Empire?
Recently, surely dozens
At least you folks got a damn ocean between you and that insanity. We Canadians are just right fucked.
Sounds like you need to hire Bugs Bunny to resolve the issue.
so according to the new laws, if you go up in the generations far enough, no american is a citizen.
RIP the US Constitution
It is time to renew the Tree of Liberty.
Fuck that, time to arm Liberty Prime
First ones to be deported should be melania and baron
Jr, Ivanka, and Eric would also be removed. Tiffany is the only “true” American.
Donald J, “Who?”
Human rights are officially a thing of the past. None of us qualify for citizenship if he removes that definition.
Birthright citizenship is not a human right. It’s pretty much only a thing in North and South America.
You can say a lot of things. But proclaiming it as a loss of human rights is not it.
You’re arguing that people don’t have the right to live where they were born and have lived their entire lives.
If that’s not a human right, than basically nothing is.Also, “only” north and south america? That’s not a trivial portion of the world that you can just “only” away.
I’m not arguing anything. I’m informing you of what the reality is.
33 countries have it. All but two are in Americas.
The rest have citizenship inherited from your parents. Meaning. Even if I was born in Portugal. It wouldn’t make me a Portugeese citizen. I would still be a Swedish citizen. Since my parents are.
“I’m not arguing anything” they say, arguing that it’s not a human right.
Get the fuck out of here with your double think.
Portugal and Sweden not respecting a human right doesn’t make it not a human right. Given how gleefully so much of Europe seems to be to deny people who have lived in the country for generations citizenship, to restrict their freedom or religion, or to just watch them fucking drown, I’m not super keen for the US to use Europe as a role model for human rights regarding citizenship.Again, if taking someone from the only home they’ve ever known to live someplace they’ve never been, don’t speak the language, and have no citizenship isn’t a human rights violation, then nothing that matters is.
I don’t give a shit if Sweden says it’s fine.Most of the world is blood right citizenship, you inherit it from your parents. Which is actually helpful if abroad on a trip and you get born you automatically get citizenship of where your parents normally would reside as a citizen, The person you were commenting on is correct, human rights has nothing to do with sovereign nations laws on who becomes a citizen. Its not a right as a human to take on the citizenship based on the continent and boundaries you live in because countries are a construct. Think back to all the border changes in places like prewar Germany. Your border could change, it doesn’t change what country “you belong to”. American having Birthright sort of made sense because it was the " new world " at the time.
By no means do I support what USA admin is doing, they are absolute assholes. But not liking it doesn’t make it a human rights violation
The freedom to not be kicked out of your home and sent to a foreign land because of who your parents happened to be is as much a right or construct as the right to speech, belief, or any other codified right.
Hence why if that’s not a right, then there are really none of significance.Rights are not bestowed by governments, international declarations, or treaties.
Arguing that a sovereign nations laws contradicting something makes it not a human right is a powerfully slippery slope.
The rights of people matter more than those of nations.
You’re either willfully being ignorant. Or just lack fundamental understanding of what Human Rights are. It’s something set by the UN.
Birthright Citizenship is not included. Period. It is not a Human Right to be a citizen in the country you’re born.
You can have the opinion that it should be. But it is in fact not.
Most countries. As in, all of them except 33. Have it so you get citizenship from either or both of your parents.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
I think it’s telling that you only consider something a human right if there’s a law protecting it.
Do you think there were no human rights before 1948?The universal declaration on human rights is the set of rights that a good number of nations could agree on. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not an exhaustive or definitive list.
Before you start accusing people of ignorance or being intentionally obtuse, you might consider that you’re actually full of shit on the concept of morality.
There was no consensus on what should be global human rights before 1948 that is correct.
Before that, the only rights you had, were the ones afforded to you by your lord, king, queen, emperor, president, prime minister, etc. For a very long time, all over the world. A lot of people had, literally. No rights at all. They were used, sold, worked, as slaves.
So it’s a wonderful thing that a bunch of countries came together and tried their best to determine some basic Human Rights that everyone should adhere to. Being afforded citizenship of the country you’re currently inside at the time of birth. Is not one of them.
If you ever bothered to actually look into them. You might find article 15 of interest.
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality
You have the Human Right to belong to a nation. But it does not stipulate which nation. Nor how you acquire the nationality. Some countries have it as the place where you were physically born. Others have it as an extension of your parents nationality.
I could explain this further if you so wish. But I doubt you’d care for it. In any case. What you personally think should and shouldn’t be a human right, won’t change the status of the actual Human Rights. Just like what you personally think should and shouldn’t be legal in your country, won’t change the status of the laws currently put in place.
Human rights are those required for human dignity and flourishing not those which are universally possessed in a world full of distress and toil.
Freedom of speech is one such commonly understood but often denied. For instance if the content of your speech can see someone removed from the land of their birth to one where they are stateless and homeless what other rights do they possess?
I don’t think birthright citizenship qualifies as a “human right” - most countries that (officially) care more about “human rights” than USA does doesn’t have that. Whether it should be removed or not is not for me to say, however. It’s a switch away from what it has genuinely mesnt to be an American.
Not having birthright citizenship doesn’t (necesarilly) mean the newborn wouldn’t have any citizenship at all
There are many birthright citizens of all ages not just infants. They would instantly become homeless and destitute in a country where they may not speak the language and have no proof of citizenship even if they may eventually have some due to them eventually.
Furthermore this is a vehicle to deny them other human rights by selectively removing people who are entitled by our constitution to citizenship for speaking against the government.
Right of redress assembly speech to be secure in their person , and to be subject to the law not a ruler are all important rights herein denied.
You are still not allowed to make someone stateless. That has not changed.
You seem to be confused as to what human rights actually are, rather than what you want them to be. I suggest you look at the wiki page.
Why would I define human rights by virtue of what a wiki says today?
Ok… but you are aware that the UN have set actual Human Rights?
Why on earth do you think not being listed in a particular document makes something not a human right
How would this result in anyone being stateless? You do realize people still inherit the citizenship of their parents right?
I’m not saying it is. And yes. I am aware of that. I’ve been mentioning it plenty of times in this post already.
deleted by creator
The problem is that birth right citizenship is in the constitution. So if Trump can get rid of that, he can get ignore the Bill of Rights as well.
EDIT: Also basically every country has birthright citizenship usually be having a citizen as a parent. What is different in the Americas is jus soli, so being born in the country making you a citizen.
Basically every country in earth does not use birth right citizenship. It’s basically only a feature of new world colony countries.
The majority of the world does not use it. The americas may have a lot of landmass they do not have the majority of people.
It’s mostly based on parentage or blood. You arnt ever born with out citizenship some country always lays claim to ownership of your person. But it’s not normally based on the borders ownership, but the person’s giving birth ownership.
That’s exactly the difference that Trump is harping on
No. Basically every country does NOT have birthright citizenship. If I was born in Spain, that would not make me a Spanish citizen. Since neither of my parents are Spanish citizens.
I would get citizenship from my parents. Not from the location I was born.
Edit: ok I see now what you mean with “birthright citizenship”. But that’s not the term used elsewhere. Yes. Everyone born has the right to a citizenship. But since we cannot be made stateless… you will never end up born without it.
It allows them to denounce citizenship of whoever they deem an enemy of the state. Hence then allowing to revoke the right of any and creating a fear state, behave or behead.
Along with setting precedent that an acting head can unilaterally change the foundations. Hence creating no quantifiable term for rights, as they then get to choose who benefits from them.
If the nation that held your birth and upbringing doesn’t want you, what is your right anywhere else?
What are you talking about? It would allow them to revoke the citizenship of people born in the US to 2 non-citizens. That’s not a significant portion of the population.
You’re not allowed to make a person stateless.
Says who? The UN? A treaty the US didn’t sign?
The constitution says people born here are citizens and they’ve decided to pretend it doesn’t. Why would an organization they want to withdraw from or a treaty they don’t recognize get more weight?
And what’s the stateless person going to do if they’re wronged? Sue?
Constitutions can be altered, amended. Which seems to be what Trump wants to do.
I’m just telling you that the majority of countries does not have birthright citizenship. It’s something you inherit from your parents. Provided they file for it if you’re born outside of a hospital or abroad.
And no. Birthright citizenship is not a human right.
And yes, someone becoming stateless against their will, would have to sue.
I’m not arguing for or against it. Not my bone to pick.
The president doesn’t get to change the constitution, or amend it. Congress doesn’t even have that power, the most they can do is present it to the states.
What you’re doing is arguing that a non-binding statement or a treaty that the US isn’t a party to is somehow a better source for morality and defining what constitutes a human right than decency or thinking for yourself.
Don’t outsource your conscience to dead guys from the 40s.If someone was born here, they can be one of us. Both constitutionally and morally. The UN and Trump have fuck all to do with morality. Kicking someone out of their home because of where their parents are from is wrong.
As for the lawsuit… Where would they sue? On what possible grounds do you think that would even get a hearing? Who do you think would enforce the ruling?
The US has signed no treaty agreeing to not make people stateless.
What possible standing would anyone have to argue in court that a country denied them citizenship, particularly if, as you say, no one has a right to citizenship in any particular country? Or is jus soli citizenship a right but only if you don’t have any other option?
It pretty much is a loss of human rights indirectly, though. Losing birthright citizenship essentially means going through whatever processes he wants to become a citizen and gain the benefits of citizenship (voting, social programs, etc.). It also means he can use it as an excuse to deport whoever, which has usually ended up involved stripped those deported of their rights.
It is basically the only form of citizenship in the USA, and since only citizens rights are respected by laws, meaning nobody has any guaranteed rights at all.
Wouldn’t it be simpler if he just ended citizenship? Then he could freely oppress just about anyone.
“Congratulations! You’ve just been promoted to US Deputy Secretary of State for the Trump Administration… Thank you for your great ideas!”
Same thing if you can override constitutional rights by executive fiat without an amendment ratified by Congress.
Constitutional amendments are ratified by the states individually, not by Congress.
From what I understand, its not the supreme court ok’d his move rather they stopped other lower federal courts from creating injunctions that stop the entire process, and they now limited them to stopping only those who bring forth lawsuits and who are affected by whatever it is.
Which is incredibly bad
Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn’t actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.
Basically what happened: Trump’s birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it’s probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he’d probably lose), Trump’s team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges’ power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.
So now Trump’s celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.
It’s more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven’t gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.
He won because he can delay actually following the law until he’s dead because it will be impractical to stop him
He did win though, because by telling federal judges that their rulings against executive orders cannot be… Federal, nationwide, the supreme court took away about 99% of the (already mediocre) checks and balances against Trump’s power (and any presidents power). To pass it off as just some procedural stuff misses how impactful this is, the only court powers that can stop his kings laws by edict (‘executive orders’) now are: case by case state-based rulings for federal judges, and the supreme court itself for nationwide rulings.
This is largely what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent: this is a huge expansion of presidential powers by the SC removing restrictions from the president, over an issue that is abundantly clearly illegal (denying birthright citizenship), and it leaves the door wide open to further illegal orders.
Her dissent is worth a read, it begins on page 54: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Fair point.
I was definitely too focused on the narrow “did they rule on birthright citizenship” question and missed the bigger picture. You’re right that this is way more than just procedural, it’s a massive shift in executive power.
The fact that federal judges can now only issue piecemeal, state-by-state rulings essentially breaks their ability to actually check presidential overreach in any meaningful way.
I think I got too caught up in fact checking the specific headline and missed how big Trump’s win actually was here, just not in the way the headlines suggested. Thanks for the correction.
My prior understanding of the issue at hand is that the probable downside for limiting the nationwide application of some federal judge rulings is that the federal agencies have the resources to select a jurisdiction to enact rules that local judges have determined to be unconstitutional to one where local judges have not. Ex. if Feds can’t violate someone’s civil rights in New York, just move that someone to Florida where the Federal Agency can violate their civil rights.
Certainly there are scenarios in which federal judges being able to issue nationwide rulings is detrimental to left leaning causes as well (mifepristone bans), however without the supreme court first taking up the case of the constitutionality of birthright citizenship before making this current ruling on application of nationwide rulings, they’re just being a bunch of shit fuck cowards.
100% on both counts.
The forum shopping issue you’re describing is exactly the problem. Trump’s team can now basically pick and choose where to implement policies that have been ruled unconstitutional elsewhere. It creates this patchwork where your constitutional rights depend on geography, which is obviously fucked.
And you’re spot on about the cowardice. The Supreme Court absolutely should have ruled on the constitutional question first. That’s the actual substantive issue everyone cares about. Instead they took the cop out that gives Trump more power without having to make the hard call on whether his order is constitutional.
Honestly it looks like classic Roberts Court behaviour: make big changes to how government works while pretending you’re just doing technical legal housekeeping. They know damn well that ruling on birthright citizenship would be messy and politically explosive, so they found a way to help Trump without having to own the constitutional implications.
Your point about this cutting both ways (like with mifepristone) is important too, but the timing here makes it pretty clear what they’re really doing.
If you end birthright citizenship, then nobody gets to be a citizen by birth. If you can’t be a citizen by birth, the only way to become a citizen is naturalization. If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
No … Not at all. This is just straight fear mongering.
The alternative to birthright is blood right or inheritance right.
Which is what the majority of the world uses. It’s only the America’s that use birth right generally.
For the most part it’s based on the blood lineage or parentage of the child. So regardless of where in the world you are born, or what borders you are in.
You get the same citizenship as your parents. Generally speaking, birthright citizenship has more issues and is more of a problem than the other methods.
Birthright is mostly used in the Americas because we were made up of colonies and for the most part you don’t leave the country you were born in back in the day. Unlike old world countries.
You may want to actually look a bit more into this. It sounds like you only are reading the panic and fear-mongering headlines.
What Trump is doing is f***** on many many levels. But the problem isn’t so much the ending of birthright citizenship itself. But the way he’s going about doing it, why he’s doing it and the lack of a proper replacement to a different system.
Hell realistically if things were done right with good intentions and through proper channels, switching from birthright to a different system could actually be and would likely be a net positive for America. Hell most of the Americas.
But instead we have a crazed lunatic doing it for the worst reasons and the worst way with no intent to switch to a different system for the betterment of the country.
But it’s been a big problem with this topic that people keep mixing up moral versus legal arguments as well as just general fear-mongering versus actual proper reasoned issues.
This is all f***** and shouldn’t be happening, but you need to call a spade a Spade or you only hurt yourself and your own argument
This was initially what was Donald’s EO and such, but blue states (of course) noticed he fucked up (imagine having so much money and you can’t have a better team looking over your shit), that they had to change it.
Now it states that parents in the US legally can have a kid and it will be a citizen. But not parents who’s here visiting and such. But what if a mom is an illegal and dad is legal? What would the kid be?
But what if a mom is an illegal and dad is legal? What would the kid be?
How brown is their skin?
And if immigrants don’t need due process and can be sent to concentration camps then it’s really easy to make anyone disappear
If immigrants don’t get due process, then nobody gets due process.
You could arrest Bill Clinton and claim he’s an immigrant. If that means he doesn’t get due process, he can never prove he’s not an immigrant, and so he’s stuck in Guantanamo forever.
That’s pretty much the plan imo
Boston witch hunt all over again.
If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
What do they think America is founded on?
A bunch of religous people who were welcomed into multiple countries but then got mad that everyone around them didn’t belive in their exact same religon they did so they found a new place and committed some genocide before building up a mythology about how they had to do it in order to flee religious persecution?
A mix of first generation immigrants, 2nd generation, 3rd generation, 4th generation, a few remaining natives.
100% first generation immigrants would be a major shift.
It’s just the title, it even says in the article he would move forward with trying to redefine the 14th amendment. Basically it’ll be if your parents are citizens, and your born here, you’ll be a citizen. (My best guess)
I see, so he wants to change it to what it is already? Makes sense.
No, right now if your parents aren’t citizens, and you are born here, you become a citizen. Say you come on a student visa, get pregnant your junior year and drop out of college to take care of your baby and try to figure out a life, the baby is a U.S. citizen. Very clearly as you can see that mother and child are a huge risk to national security. A person going to work and paying taxes while raising a kid and helping with the birthrate decline they supposedly care about is something we just can’t have.
The only moral way to fix the falling birthrate is to outlaw contraception and abortion, increase economic desperation to create a surge of underemployed young men, and increase the amount of anti-woman rhetoric and policy in popular culture and government.
You see, an increase in unemployment leads to an increase in baseline crime statistics, and an increase in dehumanizing and hateful attitudes towards women increases the rate of rape, which is now harder to prosecute. Devoid of any options, the birth rate rises and in many cases women are forced by implicit circumstances to limit their lives in ways they would not otherwise choose.
It’s a tactic explored by the Romanians, but it didn’t pan out. Clearly they allowed too many exceptions for maternal well-being, birth defects, rape and incest.Exactly, then you outlaw homelessness and deplete protection programs. This will ensure we can fill privately owned and operated prisons and use their labor to work the low paying jobs at a vastly lower pay.
Note from the article below. They claim “some of the most violent prisons” yet some of them are allowed to work 40 hours and some go home for the weekend to stay unsupervised. That doesn’t sound like a very dangerous person… In fact why are they holding them at all. Commute their sentence to probation at that point and let them get paid the actual wage. It would decrease our prison costs, while increasing taxes paid to the government and economic gains. We need to rework the prison systems to rehabilitation with much earlier releases if they are deemed safe to be working around the non incarcerated population. After all they are only supposed to be locked up because they are “a threat” to to the non incarcerated population.
And yes, that chart says the highest minimum wage is .35 cents and hour for incarcerated people. 5% of the federal minimum wage that is unlivable… meaning they can’t make anywhere near the money they need to save up for a roof and transportation to a job if they can find one when they get out. Throw in that many prisons charge inmates for being there… They have debt when they get out they need to pay off, so their credit will likely be shot.
That student is the the worst of the worst criminal.
So… He’s goin to deport Baron Trump then, right?
I’m all for deporting all of the Trumps, but technically he has citizenship because of his terrible father, regardless of birth location or his mother’s citizenship status.
Where in the Constitution do we spell out that citizenship is granted to a child on the basis of the status of the father, regardless of birth location or their mother’s status?
No we should deport the Trumps. I’m sure we can find some minor error or omission in his father’s old citizenship application. Do what they’re doing - go back up the family tree, declare their ancestor’s citizenship fraudulent, and deport their whole rotten family tree.
He is much closer to his stated goal
The power to deport any natural Born Citizen on demand for no reason at all
He has stated he wants… Needs this
On Exactly why he has been vague
That means him first motherfucker because Trump is a birthright citizen. His grandfather was an immigrant.
Not like me is like 12 generations removed but still immigrant. Except on my mother’s side that native American. But guess Trump will deport them too, because if you got technical they also are immigrants.
Question : didn’t the supreme court just say that lower level judges can’t block him? Which would mean that appeal judges can? So this question is far from settled?
I think they said the judge didn’t have the right to block it nation wide, only for the states that sued, which was 22 or something like that.
It’s still a right embedded in the constitution. The supreme court didn’t say he could do it…but the orange Cheetos in chief probably thinks they did because his mother gave birth to him at the top of a ladder
The ability to shop around for a favorable jusrisdiction is quite potent when rearranging people is supremely easy. Ship the kids to Texas then start deporting them.
They might be able to avoid a real supreme Court case by backing off in local jurisdictions causing the cases to no longer have standing and just keep it up in jurisdictions that are friendly to the administration.
This is the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. As a lawyer for the federal government, I need everyone to know that this officially marks the end of United States rule of law. Protect yourselves, and godspeed.
Billionaires and politicians. No one else matters. Don’t be distracted by the broke Nazis at ICE. The true threat numbers in the hundreds.
Well, honestly, billionaires and politicians also wouldn’t have any guaranteed rights. No one would, because anybody could have citizenship taken away at any moment: we are all citizens because we were born here and no other reason.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
I’m coping so hard by hoping that we swing very hard to the left, if only just so that these cynical, fossilized assholes live to see their bullshit rulings used against them.
I wish we could even agree where left was, but we have as many Zohran Momandi supporters as people who think Zohran’s party are satan worshipping paid shills.
This is definitely worrisome.
But is it the end of the Constitution quite yet?
The Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on the executive order trying to negate birthright citizenship, they said that lower courts couldn’t block EO’s at a national level.
Implicitly, their not commenting on the EO feels like they’ll let it stand when the case arrives, if they choose to hear it. Then I’d say the US Constitution is toast.
I’m an engineer, not a lawyer. I’d love to hear what someone more knowledgeable about this thinks.
The fact they took a copout path to not speak to the important part is a worrisome sign. If the matter were actually before them, they may rule it as unconstitutional, but they seem to be inclined to have the matter never be technically before them.
A district ruling against the order? Let it stand without taking up the case and potentially setting it nationwide. The people have no standing to appeal because they won their case.
Oh look, a jusge in Texas ruled in favor of the order, all of a sudden the government is shuffling immigrants around and deporting all birthright citizens from that jurisdiction.
They ended the ability of the Judiciary to check the Executive. That’s the very foundation of the government, set out in the Constitution: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation01.html
So yeah, it’s the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution.
I’m not happy about this either, but let’s just make sure we’re all on the same page here:
They ended the ability of the Judiciary to check the Executive.
No, they ended the ability of the lower courts to check the executive nationwide. The supreme court can still check the executive (and the US Court of Appeals?).
Now I’m trying to figure out if the lower courts can still check the executive, but only in their respective areas, or if they can make a decision, but it has to be confirmed by (at least?) the court of appeals.
From what I’m reading here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
It looks like a lower court can still request to check the executive, but the higher courts will need to grant it. At least according to Kavanaugh’s opinion:
the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court will inevitably weigh in on district court decisions granting or denying requests for preliminary injunctions.
Yes, let’s make sure we’re on the same page. You’re talking about theory, I’m talking about practice - which, in theory, are the same. In practice, however…
Oh, in practice it’s been dead for decades.
There isn’t going to be a single moment where the constitution stops existing. It’s not like a light switch. It’s a rapid erosion, like the start of a landslide, and the snow is already moving
Yes it is. Trump can effectively ignore any constitutional amendment for more than long enough to start sending people to concentration camps. This also probably isn’t the end of it, as I doubt the justices will be more willing to stand up to him in the future once he’s consolidated power further.
