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

News

23644 readers
4536 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 185 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 48 points 2 weeks ago
[–] bitchkat@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Musk doesn't have birthright citizenship. As much as we wish he'd just go away, I hope you're not suggesting they should expand this program to strip naturalized citizens.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 59 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

He worked on a student visa after dropping school.

That’s illegal, so he shouldn’t have qualified for naturalization without correcting that and leaving the country before reapplying.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 28 points 2 weeks ago

He lied on his Visa papers and is literally an illegal immigrant.

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago

Only thing naturalized about him is his bank account which is what has kept him off the icehouse list

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 145 points 2 weeks ago (15 children)

14th Amendment to the US Constitution

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.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 115 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's there, but as we've clearly seen, if the law isn't enforced, or is selectively enforced, it might as well not exist.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 33 points 2 weeks ago

Hell this exact amendment was openly ignored for nearly a century in that it is also meant to provide equality under the law for all citizens. But Women couldn't even vote for decades after this amendment was passed. Then there were a ton of laws on the books that were actively enforced that discriminated on race, sex, etc. Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement should not have been necessary after this amendment was passed. And yet....

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 53 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Start by getting rid of Ted Cruz, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Melania and all the Trump kids.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Isn't it crazy that only one person on that list is just a mere millionaire, the rest are billionaires?

Jr posted "Internet let's do your thing, let's find this guy" because he knew it was attack on his class.

If we want to Make America Great Again we needed to get rid of these parasites. They make us fight with each other, while they are the reason we get poorer and poorer.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

14A S3 wasn't enforced, why should 14A S1 be?

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Because it wasn't previously decided. However, in this case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is the Supreme Court ruling that determined the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States regardless of race or nationality.

In order to reverse, the court itself has to do it. Not that it wouldn't.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 100 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

i wish everyone would get rid of the assumption that the constitution will protect you

"that's unconstitutional!!!" doesn't mean jack shit anymore

[–] intresteph@discuss.online 42 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Every maga is downplaying his shit right now. “Not gonna happen” is what they all say.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah just like roe overturn didn't happen 🙄

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UncleJosh@lemmy.world 76 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

My 86-year old mother is house-bound but she is the daughter of two immigrants who came over in the 1910's, so I guess she's gonna be shipped off to another country. I have no idea if my brother and I, both in our 50's would be subjected to deportation considering we haven't lived with her in over 30 years.

Maybe the US shouldn't have elected an out-and-out racist asshole.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 61 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Not sure how he plans on deporting people who were born in the United States and have no citizenship anywhere else since not every country automatically gives it to people's children born abroad.

They would effectively have no home country to deport them too.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 73 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Meaning they will stay in the concentration camps until Trump's Final Solution is implemented.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Slavery is much more economically viable than extermination. So, thank you capitalism, I think?

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 22 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

But you also have to keep slaves relatively healthy to maintain them working. If you slaves get too hungry, they can't do whatever labor you make em do. If they get real sick, it's going to affect your other slaves.

And human slaves usually don't put their heads down and do it forever. A lot of the Nazi labor camps massacred their captives because they started uprisings.

There is nothing economically feasible with what they want. They just think they can do what they want and he even richer. Which is why you can look at the entirety of recorded human history for these same mistakes being repeated over and over again.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net 26 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Hello. Australian here. Just ask our sadistic government. We do it all the time. Hint: It involves putting people in camps.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That didn't stop them from deporting people to Mexico in the 30s. A senator at the time estimated that 60% of those who were removed from the country were US Citizens

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Repatriation

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 59 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Anyone in the US who believes they have any sort of legal protection is just delusional. The only protection that exists there is through money.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

We're basically going back to an older era where rights are much less certain. Think of the rights people in the US had before Roe v Wade. Yep, we are basically back to before Roe v Wade was passed. That's the America we live in.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 54 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

It's never going to stop surprising me when a politician says he's going to do something, I tell people, and then he does it but so many people were still caught completely off guard. I imagine this is how many in the UK feel about Brexit.

[–] purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 26 points 2 weeks ago

For real Brexit was a stunning result. I just remember this post results interview with same randoms about it and one of the yes voters was like "yea I just through it was never going to happen and voted yes as a laugh."

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's unreal. Days after the election, people I work with were saying that Project 2025 was just propaganda and that he's not actually going to do all the stuff he said he would do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Plum@lemmy.world 48 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Like his wife and his DOGE crony?

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 32 points 2 weeks ago

The rules do not apply to the rich. I think at this point he has made that clear over and over again.

[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

So is he going to stop renting his penthouses in Florida to Russians so they can have babies here to be US citizens? Or does his plan only affect brown people?

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago

This is libelous. The Russian penthouses are in NYC.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

What about his birthright citizenship? His family came to the Americas as immigrants too.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 38 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

He doesn't mean white people, silly.

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

does that include melania and elon?

[–] auzy@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

No

In other news, 34 criminal convictions by a unanimous jury (which is near impossible to win) doesn't make you a criminal either apparently. You're only a criminal if you're related to Biden (and don't worry, revenge porn by Marjorie is perfectly ok too)

You could bring down the average conviction rate in the US simply by deporting Trump

[–] rational_lib@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

"Doesn't the 14th Amendment pose a problem for that plan?"
"Not a problem, no one handles amendments like me. 14 amendments is nothing, when I...when I do the Christ stuff before food I do 15, 30, 100 amendments. And people say 'Wow, you are so good with the amendments, no one does the amendments like you.' So I got that all taken care of."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 26 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

This would be huge. Much like Europe, America's population will decline. You need immigrants.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Immigrants are the heart and soul of this country. I can't even imagine wanting to live in whatever milquetoast, boring-ass, white bread America that these idiots want.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 weeks ago (8 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

Latino men who voted for Trump right now:

😬

[–] intresteph@discuss.online 35 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Nah, they still think, “not me”

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 17 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

What I'm reading is that they want to deport Americans in "mixed status families", and then go after them as criminals when they don't just continue paying taxes and fulfilling the ridiculous reporting requirements as they try to resettle their life in a new home and the US demands that their new local residence actually be treated as foreign assets. Which is great for the rich, because it basically saturates the system in such a way that the focus is taken away from rich tax evaders and tax avoidance schemes as it is driven to deal with these new "criminals".

Ending birthright citizenship would lead to a lot of relief from the people leaving the US who are seeking renunciation - except I have a feeling that greed and the aforementioned reasons are going to find a way to still make them have to seek it.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

When Republicans say deport 5% of the population what they mean is put them in camps until they die because there's no way they could process all that paperwork

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›