so according to the new laws, if you go up in the generations far enough, no american is a citizen.
Can the supreme court just straight up ignore the constitution, under the constitution?
Surely no, right?
Sure. But who can enforce that?
Only the Congress, by impeachment. But the Congressional majority is fine with dismantling checks and balances and nullifying whole swaths of the Constitution that protect our rights.
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.
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.
RIP the US Constitution
It is time to renew the Tree of Liberty.
Fuck that, time to arm Liberty Prime
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.
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.
It is a human right, just not one that is universally respected.
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.
Rights are bestowed by governments though. We have moved passed roaming the land and setting up a homestead wherever you like, we now have governments that scribe boundaries and zone land, it is no longer “freedom”. If you are worried about citizenship and your parents move it is on them to pursue PR and then citizenship, then the same for their children.
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
It is not the UN’s domain to determine human rights. It’s its job to recognize and (ideally) to promote and protect them. And it’s not wonderfully effective at that part of its job.
I agree that UN is not wonderfully effective at enforcing Human Rights. That is fair and valid criticism. I don’t think they’re very good at enforcing anything to be honest.
You may have the opinion that it shouldn’t be in the UN’s domain to determine Human Rights. But matter of fact is. The Declaration of Human Rights is something the UN made. They did determine them. It has already happened. I strongly advise everyone to go and read them. You will probably find that everything you wish was there, is actually in there. There are a total of 30 articles. So it’s not a particularly long read.
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.
I think it’s telling that you only consider something a human right if there’s a law protecting it.
Yeah. The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution plainly says that there are more rights than are enumerated.
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.
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.
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
Because it’s factually not a Human Right?
Your opinion of what you want them to be. Doesn’t make it so.
You have the right to a nationality. (Article 15) How you get one is up to each country. Most grant you one from either of your parents. Not the location you were born.
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?Someone definitely have the power to amend the Constitution, seeing as you have several amendments. No?
Again. What you want Human Rights to be. Doesn’t change what they actually are.
You don’t think that everyone will have different opinions of what should and shouldn’t be included? So how would you ever be able to say what they are?
Why do you seem to think that morality would be limited to Human Rights? Things can not be a right, and still immoral. Morality is also a very subjective thing.
What isn’t subjective. Is the Human Rights as determined by the UN.
I’m not going to argue about who and who doesn’t get to be a US citizen. But changing the way nationality is given, is factually not a Human Rights issue.
You can say it’s a constitutional issue. But it sure isn’t a Human Rights one.
As to the last part. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not going to speculate in the legal defense. You asked what they would do, sue? And the answer is yes.
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.
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.
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.
That’s exactly the difference that Trump is harping on
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.
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.
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.
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.
Moron is literally BEGGING
So like every country in Europe, got it.
Change the constitution then. It’s crystal clear. We don’t live in a vibe democracy. You don’t jut get to pick and choose what laws you get to follow if you want to be a nation of laws at all.
Of all the things European countries do, that’s the one you like?
Europe isn’t the Americas. Nearly every country in the Americas has birthright citizenship. Your nation is an outlier in the Western Hemisphere if it doesn’t have birthright citizenship. In any country composed of large settler populations, birthright citizenship is essential to preventing the formation of a slave caste. If you lack it, you inevitably end up with multi-generational illegal immigrant communities, which end up forming a slave caste of exploitable labor.
I for one oppose the creation of a slave caste, so I am in favor of birthright citizenship.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but wouldn’t one way to solve that problem be to remove folks who aren’t here legally? I don’t like Trump or his policies, but what he’s doing, as horrible as it is, seems to rectify the situation of having a slave caste. In fact, I see articles posted here all the time talking about how they can’t find people to work farms. It’s obviously created other problems, but they’re kind of irrelevant for this discussion.
I don’t know how the US can’t function the same way as a European nation just because it’s geographically across an ocean. I do agree with you that it shakes out that way, but I’m not sure why where the US is plays a role. How long does the US need to wait to not be composed of large settler populations?
Honest question here too because I appreciate your viewpoint, and I just know there’s a lot of folks across the pond who are quick to say America bad, and then America adjusts it’s tack to perform the same way as those countries, and I hear no, not like that.
What you’re apparently too blind to see is that Trump doesn’t deport illegal immigrants - he MAKES illegal immigrants. He’s turning legal immigrants into illegal immigrants by revoking their immigration status. And he wants to do the same to born US citizens.
And you can try to breeze away the problems of lacking birthright citizenship with your hypothetical, but it’s just that, a hypothetical. Meanwhile, in actual history, when you don’t have something like birthright citizenship, you DO end up with a multigenerational slave caste. You can never remove everyone as business interests don’t actually want the undocumented population removed. They just want them in hiding and in fear so they can exploit their labor.
The US also has along history of not granting full citizenship to large swathes of its population. We had widespread chattel slavery. We had Jim Crow. We still have prison slavery. We have a long history of our worst people trying to deliberately engineer a class of people who don’t fully count as human and can thus become cheap exploitable labor. That’s why we need a hard rule that says, “fuck you, you asshat politician. Everyone born here is a citizen, full stop.”
Europe is hardly a model to emulate. Many European countries have just the type of slave caste I’m talking about - unassimilated groups of immigrants that have been there for generations yet still lack citizenship.
If you were born here, you deserve to be a citizen. Your very physical being is formed from the air, the water, and the food of this land. Anyone born in America is an American, and any US politician who refuses this truth deserves to be hanged for treason against the Republic. Trump literally deserves to be hanged for this. That is not an exaggeration or hyperbole. He literally deserves to die for this. In a just world, he would be tried and executed for his betrayal of this fundamental American value. He has committed treason against the Republic.
So your saying you would support if they updated it to, everyone who is here as of Jan 1st, 2026 (or whenever it passed) is legally a citizen whether or not they were in the naturalization process, and only their decendents can get birthright citizenships. (And all future citizens who get naturalized by sponsorship)
I could be fine with that IF every workplace is mandated to sponsor every person they hire on a work visa. If they are caught hiding that they hired a worker the company is dissolved and the owners/executives get life in prison. All student Visa’s allowed a fast tract acceptance to a work visa while attending school or a period of forebearance while it processes if applied for within 90 days of leaving the educational institution.
Asylum applications need to be updated to NOT require the person to be on U.S. soil and made accessible online. If a person applies for asylum and any personal information down to just giving a name is leaked by any member of our government or institutions set to minotor/run those applications, the penalty is life in prison.
On unrelated news, what would happen if people stopped paying federal taxes?
I.e., if all of california, or blue states in general, stopped paying federal taxes simultaneously, what would realistically be the outcome?
How would it affect the US? How would it affect the states?
And: Is there a proper place to discuss ideas such as this one?
My (very rough) understanding is that people pay income taxes to the federal tax agency directly. From there, the central US government sends parts of it back to the states, to do things with it such as public services.
Blue states are more economically heavy than red states. They pay in more than they get out. If they stop paying taxes, the US suffers but they get to keep a larger share to themselves? My understanding is very rough, it’s just a rough idea.
It could weaken Trump’s government?
To get a meaningful amount of people to withhold their taxes from the Fed you’d probably need to get enough people working and acting together that you’d already have been able to elect progressive politicians to begin with.
Last time shit got real bad economically we had general strikes, the building of unions, trust and monopoly regulation, etc.
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.
