• SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    Wait … Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?

    It’s either where you’re born or where you live. Which is it?

    Wtf even is citizenship then?

    “I’m from Ireland” is synonymous with “I’m Irish”… Right?

    So if you’re born in America, wouldn’t you… Be American?

    If he takes that away, you aren’t just magically from nowhere, you’re still American.

    This is stupid and makes no sense, it’s all just classism and racism. I hate everything.

    • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 minutes ago

      Its the same as the election between Obama and McCain, in ways a lot of people dont realize.

      Obama, by virtue of having a non-traditional name and not being white, was hounded by birthers despite being born an American citizen clear as day with absolutely no question about it.

      McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone the year before people born in the canal zone were granted citizenship at birth. Arguably he was not a citizen at birth under the definitional requirements of the constitution to be president. He was naturalized as a citizen retroactively.

      Palin is part native, and was pretty heavily involved with Alaska Native movements that rejected US sovereignty and thereby rejected claims to citizenship. But no one talked about that either because shes also largely seen as just being a white American.

      And yet Obama, who was American thru and thru from birth without question, never was involved with Hawaiian sovereignty movements, is the one whos citizenship was questioned.

      “White makes right” is the rule of law to these people

    • Hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 minutes ago

      Most people are citizens of where they also live and give birth so this distinction doesn’t come up in most cases. But for children born to immigrants or travelers it does.

      Citizenship can either be assigned by where you were born, or who you were born to.

      Birthright citizenship, as we use the term in the US, is mostly a new world invention. In nearly all countries in the americas, any children born here are citizens without exception. No matter the parents, no matter the circumstances.

      In the old world, most countries require a parent to be a citizen in order for the child to also be a citizen.

      Generally if an american couple gives birth in Europe, the child will just be american, despite where they were born. If a European couple gives birth in any of the americas, their child will be a citizen of the americas, despite anything else

    • D_C@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Furthermore aren’t, at least some of, his kids from ? The youngest psychopath is definitely of imported genetics, does that mean the next oppositional president (ha, like Fatboy is ever going to let go of all that power now he’s king of the us) could kick all tRUMPs offspring out?

  • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    4 hours ago

    At what point does everyone say “if he’s not following the law, then neither should we”?

    • Infinite@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Right, they only said “nobody can stop you from doing illegal things.”

      Completely different.

  • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I’m curious if this means that certain cities or states will become citizenship havens because their local courts decided to provide injunctions for their jurisdiction.

  • w3dd1e@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I’d like to pay a reporter to ask Trump how it feels to wipe his ass with the Constitution. I’d think it would be coarse and unpleasant, but he keeps doing it.

    Ill just stick with Charmin or whatever.

    • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Trump will then happily show his new line of merchandise. One is his “We The People” line of toilet paper. There’s also his “Smooth Criminal” line, extra soft toilet paper with the entire criminal law printed on it.

  • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Lest we forget:

    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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Pretty hard to argue that “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” doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It’s not even in legalese. The fact that this wasn’t laughed out of court says everything.

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      They haven’t decided on the legality of it yet. They just decided that courts cannot issue universal injunctions. They can only stop it at a case by case level for those who are suing. If they decide it’s unconstitutional, then it’ll have to stop nationally, but a lot of damage can be done before then. I think they’ll decide in October…

    • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      It is just a fucking piece of paper.

      If the judges and politicians and police don’t care and no one else can do anything then it means nothing.

      It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

      North Korea of America is where we are now.

      • thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Uggh. I can work out whether to upvote you for the accurate summary of the source of law & state power or downvote you for the utter idiocy of the invasion statement.

        Russia can’t - they’re struggling to take over a country a fifth their size and have burnt through their Soviet stockpiles.

        UK & EU certainly won’t invade, at most they’d send a peacekeeping force to protect civilians at a UN request (UN probably wouldnt pass it)

        Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.

        Mexico might just on principle (payback’s a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.

        Same for South American Asian and African countries.

        That leaves China, and if you think the Chinese are stupid enough to insert themselves in your civil war and create a sole enemy for both sides to fight you have zero understanding of the Chinese strategy.

        The Chinese will wait for you all to decimate the country and each other, then come in and buy up the bits they want. Oh and invade Taiwan while y’all are busy destroying your country.

        Putin’s plan to destroy the US has worked magnificently.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.

        No other nations are going to be invading the US, let alone multiple of them. They don’t have the logistics for it.

    • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The problem is and has always been “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

      People have been twisting that to mean that anyone that isn’t born to American citizen parents means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

        • Laser@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Yeah, this is the thing that’s ignored because it would let the whole narrative collapse.

          Either you can’t deport them because they’re American citizens, or you can’t deport them because they’re not subject to your laws anyway. But in the end, this would just lead to (more) unlawful / illegal deportations.

  • WatDabney@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    So literally what happened here is Trump said, “I want to violate the Constitution” and the Supreme Court said, " Okay — go ahead."

    And that’s it for the rule of law in the US.

    All that’s left now is to tally the mass murders along the way to the inevitable collapse of the US, and to hope that our descendents can build something better out of the rubble.

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      That’s not literally what happened at all. Trump said, “I want to violate the constitution and issued an order”. Then states cities and organizations sued across three cases and courts issued universal injunctions. Trump said “wah! Help me puppet kourt!” Then the Supreme Court was like, “be still mein führer. We will not allow these injunctions to apply to the entire nation. Only to those who have sued.”

      They gave him second base. Let’s see if they go all the way for Don Don.

      • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I’m not a USer so correct me if wrong here, but is the implication then that something can be considered constitutional in one state but not in another? How does that work?

        • chuymatt@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 minutes ago

          It doesn’t. The ruling makes little sense and is just showing that playing the game with absolutely no ethics works very well.

  • mienshao@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    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.

    • redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Billionaires and politicians. No one else matters. Don’t be distracted by the broke Nazis at ICE. The true threat numbers in the hundreds.

    • gatohaus@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 hours ago

        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.

      • 𝕱𝖎𝖗𝖊𝖜𝖎𝖙𝖈𝖍@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        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

  • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Oh look. One of the things we said would happen, happened.

    Thank God 88 million people skipped their final chance to vote in protest, apathy, stupidity, or all three. Boy that sure showed us!

  • uss_entrepreneur@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    As much as I dislike the decision, they did not give the “ok”

    The ruling was about how the lower courts handle injunctions. The court cases are playing out still.

    I still hate the decision.

    • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Effectively, anyone who does not have a lawyer who files a specific suit in a very short period of time can be deported at will. Saying it does not end the 14th Amendment is an exercise in English language mechanics, not in how it ends up affecting the world.

      If you are high school student who is shipped off to a foreign prison, how likely do you think it is somebody will fight to bring you back?

    • dis_honestfamiliar@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Bunch of pansies. All they had to do is say No

      And would have been the end of it. But they are scared of him for w/e reason. Trump can’t even remember Barrett.

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a “green card” holder.

    So is this retroactive? Do states that are not challenging take effect in 30 days? Who the fuck knows. Make sure to do jack shit to stop all of this.

    https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-may-rule-allowing-enforcement-trump-birthright-citizenship-2025-06-27/

    • Zier@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 hours ago

      His 1st & current wife were not citizens when those children were born. They should be deported.

  • catloaf@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    The supreme court did not give the OK. They said that you have to sue individually or as a class action and kicked it back down to the lower court. And several orgs are currently petitioning for class action status.

    Edit: they also said courts can’t issue nationwide injunctions, they have to be narrower.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 hours ago

      When talking about birthright citizenship, how do you get narrower than nationwide injunctions?

      What the Republicans in the Supreme Court seem to be arguing is that the president can ignore the law as long as the people affected can’t afford a lawsuit.

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Iirc, the way it’ll work out is if you’re born in one of the 22 blue states with an order, you get to be a citizen. If you’re born in a red state, though, you’re fucked. It’s a very strange issue to patchwork, though, even stranger than abortion.

        • jacksilver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          The Supreme Court hasn’t actually decided if it’s illegal or not. This is just about injunctions to stop Trumps EO.

          That being said, it’s also a federal issue so you couldn’t get a patchwork like abortion.

          Unless I’m missing something?

          • taiyang@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            The news was talking about the patchwork, and yeah, you’d think it’s a federal issue but the injunctions can only apply where the lawsuits were, hence the 22 states that sued. At least for now.

            At least that’s my understanding. It likely can’t stay in this limbo for long, anyway. Will this court be corrupt enough to say it’s constitutional when it’s clearly not? I really hope not.