this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2025
728 points (99.5% liked)

News

24042 readers
4902 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

Donald Trump signed an executive order to challenge birthright citizenship, targeting children of undocumented immigrants born in the U.S.

The order argues against the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship for those born on U.S. soil.

It bars federal agencies from recognizing birthright citizenship and imposes a 30-day waiting period for enforcement.

The order is expected to face significant legal challenges, with critics calling it unconstitutional.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)
  • Step 1: Reinterpret the 14th Amendment so hundreds of thousands of immigrants lose their citizenship
  • Step 2: Mass deportation
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Republicans opposing elements of the 14th amendment after decades of claiming to love the constitution. Not surprising.

But yeah, we have birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment for a reason. Even if we were the only country to have it, where it's found would explain why.

Instead let's fix the other things we're the only country with like our antiquated system of measurement or our health care system

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago (3 children)

“It’s ridiculous, we’re the only country in the world that does this with birthright, as you know, and it’s just absolutely ridiculous. We think we have really good grounds. People have wanted to do this for decades.”

Canada has birthright citizenship.

Trump is ignorant and Trump is stupid.

Congratulations, America, you elected a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, serial sexual assaulter and harasser, serial adulterer, serial fraudster, pathological liar, lifelong con man, and wannabe dictator but more importantly you elected a fucking idiot.

[–] blurryeyes@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] FleetingTit@feddit.org 1 points 17 hours ago

He wasn't a convicted felon the first time around.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 55 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Love how he swore an oath to uphold the constitution then a few hours later signs and executive order that goes against it

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] alphapuggle@programming.dev 86 points 2 days ago (5 children)
[–] nepenthes@lemmy.world 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fuck, lots to unpack here.

Sooooo, that actually is his official portrait? I thought someone posted it as satire. At least he's not hiding that he's the villain.

"America we're back" is his slogan? That and the pic looks after school special.

The loading screen icon is the White House -- was it always? Because as a Canadian all it invokes in me is the memory of us burning it down.

Did the constitution page get remapped? Or is it gone, gone?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 22 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So I was just thinking they were being cheeky and posted a fake URL that would show an error from the Whitehouse website, but I Googled "whitehouse website constitution" and google has a link to their page on the constitution... It's gone.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] starelfsc2@sh.itjust.works 66 points 2 days ago (3 children)

just now realizing everything I have done in my life in trying to contribute less plastic and waste less is not even 0.00001% compared to the environmental damage these executive orders are going to do.

[–] ShadowWalker@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

The "you are personally responsible for climate change" was always a scam. It is the big corporations that are responsible.

[–] Tire@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Take off your individualism hat and put on your collective hat. Group actions make a difference.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 111 points 2 days ago (1 children)

with critics calling it unconstitutional.

You don't need to be a critic to call it unconstitutional. It is, as it contradicts an Amendment.

[–] GuitarSon2024@lemmy.world 37 points 2 days ago (2 children)

This exactly. It is COMPLETELY unconstitutional in the very definition of the word.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 300 points 3 days ago (13 children)

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.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I don't get how you square those two together.

[–] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 124 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Probably with “The founders only wanted what I think they wanted, despite their explicit instructions”

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 102 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Interpreting old texts to match their own personal beliefs is what Christo fascists are best at.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

SCOTUS: well you see here, I can’t seem to find my reading glasses between these stacks of cash… ah yes here they are, it’s legal because we say so.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 76 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Look no further than the dissent to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (when the Supreme Court ruled that the passage you cited grants citizenship by birthright), written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the mastermind behind such legal opinions as:

  • Racial segregation is completely legal (Plessy v. Ferguson)
  • States can't regulate workplace conditions or enact maximum working hours laws (Lochner v. New York)
  • Income tax is unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust)

Anyway, he wrote:

the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute

and

[Birthright citizenship means] the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

So in other words, he was willing to rule that the constitution is optional as long as you are using it against undesirable races in order to get his way.

[–] DrDeadCrash@programming.dev 31 points 2 days ago

unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute

It absolutely does! That's the point!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 days ago

You just lie about the second part and have a government full of sycophants and a corrupt Supreme Court that declares that everything you do is by definition legal.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 70 points 2 days ago (14 children)

Can't wait for the Right to recognize that if they normalize nullifying constitutional amendments with executive orders, the next Democrat president can just use that to nullify the 2nd Amendment that they're so terribly fond of.

Of course that assumes there will be another election some day.

[–] phughes@lemmy.ca 39 points 2 days ago (9 children)

next Democrat president

LOL. Fascism is here. There will never be another Democrat president.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago

that assumes that the Dems will actually do literally anything at all.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Democrat president can just use that to nullify the 2nd Amendment

Can, but won't, because that would be "going low" and "we aren't like them"

You know, like cowardly dipshits

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 23 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Yeah, if they let him start dictating constitutional amendments by executive order there definitely won't be a next election.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 34 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I noticed a trend with Trump's executive order spree yesterday - almost all of them are just fluff or red meat for the base that don't have any effect on anything, like the one defining genders, and others are so blatantly unconstitutional that they will be challenged and most likely never implemented, like the one in question terminating birthright citizenship - it's guaranteed to go before the courts and get struck down. Doing something like that would require an constitutional amendment.

He's counting on the goldfish brain base to give him credit for doing these wacky things and then not pay attention three weeks from now when an ACLU lawsuit essentially puts the order in limbo before it dies in front of a judge.

Trump might as well sign an executive order that declares himself Emperor of the Moon and Supreme Chancellor of Outer Space, it'll have about the same amount of impact as this first round of executive orders will.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 24 points 2 days ago (9 children)

t’s guaranteed to go before the courts and get struck down

If only trump controlled the highest court in all the land. A "supreme" court, if you will.

That said, trump and his allies have been pretty open that the idea is to spam EOs to demoralize people and distract them from what they are really doing. And, in this case, Legal Eagle (and Liz Dye) kind of already explained it:

The idea will be to declare a border crisis (done) to give the potus wider reaching powers. Same with declaring Mexican cartels as terrorists (they kind of are, but not to us). The combination of those mean they can invade sanctuary cities under "national security" excuses and can argue that illegal immigrants are enemy combatants which DO have a carve out.

The "quirk" of Kamala no longer being a citizen because her parents were here under student (?) visas MIGHT get struck down. But the real goal of populating labor camps with brown people is right on track.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it’s guaranteed to go before the courts and get struck down. Doing something like that would require an constitutional amendment.

lolwut?

With this SCOTUS, they will pluck the case out of the line, before it goes down any circuit, and they will issue a ruling declaring it constitutional.

That's what happens when you have a bought-and-paid-for SCOTUS.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Trump might as well sign an executive order that declares himself Emperor of the Moon and Supreme Chancellor of Outer Space, it’ll have about the same amount of impact as this first round of executive orders will.

Look, not to call you out or anything, but the impact of these edicts (however nonsensical) is radically different now that he's in office.

The problem isn't the legitimacy or legality of any such order, it's the veracity and scope to which they are carried out regardless of those facts. He just pardoned the Jan 6th insurrectionists. Now, people that are handed off-the-wall, yet much more clear, orders from the White House can now go on thinking that illegal activity pursued in the name of said order will be washed away. So, stuff like this will cause damage to be done well before any courts can intervene, constitutionality be damned.

As a bonus, this adds culpability to the actions of his subordinates. Step in line or lose your job. Fail me after committing a crime and you go straight to prison. This is an organized crime tactic to keep shady people in line.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] __nobodynowhere@lemm.ee 10 points 2 days ago

There are no longer checks nor balances.

argues against the 14th Amendment

critics calling it unconstitutional

Uuuuh yeaaah, no shit...

[–] Cool_Name@lemm.ee 121 points 3 days ago (13 children)

The heritage foundation has an argument prepared for the inevitable supreme court case. I think it's shit, even for them, but SCOTUS seems like they'll go along with anything.

Their argument hinges on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" claiming that this somehow excludes non-citizens. Accepting this argument would have the weird implication of saying that non-citizens in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So... how do other laws apply to them? How could they be charged with working or entering the US illegally?

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 84 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That clause was targeted at, and is still targeted at, foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity. If you can't be compelled to to pay your parking tickets because you put the little flag on your car, then your babies also don't get to be Americans. Easy.

If your typical non-little-flag-on-car undocumented immigrants are really "not subject to the jurisdiction," then how can you arrest them for all of the horrible crimes they are allegedly committing?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 37 points 2 days ago (11 children)

How does this work? Aren't most people citizens because of birthright citizenship?

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 days ago

My ancestors certainly didn't do the proper paperwork before landing here.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] zabadoh@ani.social 93 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (11 children)

Would you like to know more?

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 69 points 2 days ago (5 children)

states should arrest border patrol agents attempting this.

Democrats should threaten to charge anyone attempting this of human trafficking.

[–] TammyTobacco@sh.itjust.works 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think recent events have shown Democrats are incapable of helping anybody but themselves. And even then they're shit.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 30 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I never ever ever want to hear anymore excuses from democrats about "oh, but we did kinda do the one thing. Governance is hard, and we just couldn't get 100% of Congress to agree. The republicans bullied us until we came and we're all out of gas :("

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Teknevra@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Deport Elon

load more comments
view more: next ›