News
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. 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.
view the rest of the comments
This title isn’t true. The court has not “given the OK”
Right, they only said "nobody can stop you from doing illegal things."
Completely different.
It was about whether or not a federal court can issue a nationwide injunction.
The verdict has much more to do with active cases of deportees suing the US than it does to do with birthright citizenship.
This is technically true, but it's also wrong.
Yes, they didn't technically rule on birthright citizenship, but it doesn't matter. Without national injunctions, your right to birthright citizenship doesn't actually exist as a practical matter.
By the time you can file your individual case challenging the revocation of your citizenship, you'll already be in an ICE concentration camp. And you don't have a right to an attorney during immigration proceedings.
That’s not true either. The people who filed suit can stop him, but not for the entire nation.
This is just cope. They did give the OK. They didn't technically say he could revoke birthright citizenship, but they removed the ability for people to effectively challenge the revocation of their citizenship. If you can't actually exercise your rights, then your rights don't exist.
But keep huffing the copium.
Please explain how they removed the ability to challenge it.
Also, they are still going to make a decision. Just haven’t done it yet.
Please explain your current understanding of the ruling in full before you ask others for lengthy explanations.
I asked you first. So annoying.
Here ya go: The ruling is against universal injunctions. Any existing injunctions stay and any future plaintiffs can block the order as well. It just can’t be stopped across the country from any existing or future rulings. Unless of course the Supreme Court ends up saying it’s unconstitutional.
Your turn.
And you don't see the blindingly obvious problems with that, the issues that have been repeatedly pointed out in dozens of articles on the subject? I'm sorry, but you just aren't operating in good faith. You're either willfully ignoring those issues, or you are demanding others do your homework for you.
So you don’t have an answer to my question? Sounds like you’re the one operating blindly. Just saying things.
No, I just don't suffer fools.
Great chat! Read the ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Look, I don't know why you have such piss-poor critical thinking skills and a complete lack of any ability to read the voluminous coverage on the subject.
But the entire reason Trump wanted this ruling was because it would make it easier to trample people's rights. Without national injunctions, your rights do not exist. This is especially true for immigration. The Trump admin is also fighting to be able to deport people without due process, and you're already not entitled to representation during immigration procedures.
What portion of immigrants can afford a lawyer? If you're a low-income US citizen, and Trump decides to revoke your citizenship, what exactly is your plan? Yes, you have citizenship from birth, but that doesn't matter. Trump has decided to just fucking ignore the Constitution entirely. And yes, in theory, you can sue the admin in court, but good luck with that. If you can even afford a lawyer, by the time you find one, you'll already be on a plane to Sudan.
How are you so dense that you can't realize that the entire point of Trump pursuing this is that he wants to remove from people the ability to challenge his illegal actions? There's literally no other reason to do this. If you live in the US, you have seen your own rights massively curtailed by this ruling. But you're either too stupid to realize that, or you're just happy that you're not likely to be at the front of the line of people being fed into the meat grinder.
Don't link to a massive ruling and tell people "just read it" you fucking goober.
Are you okay? What’s really bothering you? It’s not about the ruling. I can tell it’s something else. I’m being genuine. You can DM me.
The supreme court did give the ok saying that it comes down to states and individuals to stop it.
That isn't true. That is what sensationalist headlines said the verdict was. The verdict had nothing to do with birthright citizenship.
We desperately need media literacy training as a species.
https://youtu.be/BaAQCTMg_lk
Edit: go no further. There is nothing of value beyond this point. You're welcome.
It is true. It's not a ruling on birthright citizenship but it does stop the injunction against it.
Edit to explain because I doubt you grasp: Without the injunction he's free to act on a birthright citizenship ban unless sued by individuals or states on the behalf of said individuals. So over 20 states have no limit to this executive order pausing the deportation of people born in the US because they haven't sued the federal government for breaking the 14th amendment.
If anything this is far worse than just birthright citizenship because Trump can write executive orders far faster than lawsuits can be brought against the administration and lower federal courts can't file injunctions against the administration, states or individuals have to sue.
Again: The supreme court did give the ok, saying that it comes down to states and individuals to stop it because it removed the lower courts' ability to file injunctions.
Because you doubt I'll grasp... Why?
You're the one who ate up the sensationalistic news headlines and regurgitated them like a good little boy?
I'm not going to read the content of your response because you open with inflammatory bullshit. Grow up.
Tagged as "fucking douche."
Ohh your feelings hurt because everyone downvoted you. Cool, take it out on me. That's the Hallmark of someone to take seriously in conversation.
Heh
Got it, no response.
Cheers, blocked.
Start media literacy training by never citing YouTube videos as sources. It's far better to learn to read.
The word for learning to read books is literacy.
I was talking specifically about learning to read things that are not books.