this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
217 points (99.1% liked)

politics

30486 readers
2591 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The End Birthright Citizenship for Territories Act, introduced by Representative Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican, would amend federal laws that grant U.S. citizenship at birth to people born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. The legislation would limit those provisions to people born before January 1, 2027, effectively ending automatic citizenship for future births unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Birthright citizenship is the legal principle that grants U.S. citizenship to most people born on American soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The administration has sought to restrict the long-standing interpretation of birthright citizenship, but those efforts stalled on June 30, when the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order.

The case that prompted the ruling, Trump v. Barbara, had addressed whether children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are entitled to citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. The court held that such children are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The new proposal is part of the Trump administration's push to reduce immigration levels and tighten restrictions on who can qualify for U.S. citizenship.

So, what, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are no longer subject to the laws of the United States? So, there is no federal court in Puerto Rico exercising jurisdiction over the territory? What about the US Virgin Islands?

Does that mean they don't have to pay taxes to the fascist regime?

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

John McCain wouldn't have been a citizen if this law had been in place at the time of his birth.

Not that they give a shit.

[–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 1 points 2 hours ago

The Republican party now recognizes that McCain was a loser, because winners don't get caught. If Trump wanted to revoke McCain's citizenship post-mortem, some scumsucker in the House would draft a bill.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 3 points 4 hours ago
[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Okay but anyone born in DC doesn’t get to be a citizen either.

These people are so hateful.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 4 hours ago

Most people in DC are pretty progressive, actually

[–] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 79 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Republicans who support this are just racists. No more. No less. Whether these Republicans are insane, incompetent, or evil, they are simply wrong. Stop discriminating against American babies!

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly what is the issue? Most countries don't have birth right citizenship. Seems to be more common in the "New world" which understand. But times change and bow we can be around the world in less then a day. Honestly am I missing something?

Then make an Amendment; that's the legal way to change this. The only way.

[–] iltoroargento@startrek.website 45 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Republicans ~~who support this~~ are just racists.

At this point, if you're still hanging around with the fascists, you've become a fascist.

[–] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 7 points 13 hours ago

This is a fair criticism. We are deep into a second Trump Presidency so there's no more excuses to being ignorant of the complicit fascism. We live in the information age of the 21st Century. It's past time to be ignorant or ill-informed of softly supporting evil.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago

Immigration law in the US is and has always has been racist. The first federal immigration law was called the Chinese Exclusion act for fucks sake.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Make it retroactive, then kick everyone out back to their country of origin.

Let the natives take back their land and govern in their ancestral way.

Problem solved.

[–] NekoKoneko@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Republicans: Yes, I support this, because I am from America and obviously it means they'll kick out everyone but us.

[–] X@piefed.world 16 points 16 hours ago

Oh look, the fascists are doing racist shit. Must be a day that ends with a “y”.

[–] disorderly@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

And yet I'm sure these great thinkers don't want to admit any of these territories as states, and they don't want to relinquish their claims over them, so... What? They want to create an underclass of people on US soil who aren't a part of any nation?

Disgusting.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, yes, they want to create an underclass of people in US soil by any metric possible.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

That's, like, literally the entire point of conservatism.

[–] thethrilloftime69@feddit.online 1 points 3 hours ago

That's the entire point of capitalism* ftfy

[–] bw42@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

It would end up probably like American Samoa, which its people are U.S. Nationals, not citizens.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

So they got shot down in court (by their own hand-picked court, no less!) for trying to do this nationwide, and now they think they can do it in US territories, like that's a special case where the US Constitution doesn't apply?

[–] bw42@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

They can do it in the territories. The ones that grant citizenship by birth were giving that through Congress passing laws for it. American Somoa does not grant citizenship by birth, instead its people are U.S. Nationals, but not citizens.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago

American Somoa does not grant citizenship by birth, instead its people are U.S. Nationals, but not citizens

At this point, they should consider it a blessing.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Are US territories not in the United States? The language of the 14th amendment seems quite clear on this.

[–] bw42@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

They are, but they are treated differently. Through a bunch of racist decisions the supreme court allows them to be treated differently. They felt that the people of the territories weren't civilized enough to participate in our democracy. They're called the Insular Cases and very racist.

Congress eventually passed laws granting citizenship to people in the territories, except American Samoa.

The 14th applying to the territories has been ignored repeatedly by the courts.

[–] farmgineer@nord.pub 9 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

Not that they care, probably, but doesn't this run against UN conventions because these people would essentially be stateless?

[–] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Trump doesn’t care about the UN or international law.

Or any laws, really, unless he’s using them to oppress people he doesn’t like.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Birthright citizenship is by no means the standard. It's not rare, but most of the world does not use it. Most of them are in the Americas, but that whole thing gets complicated.

Most countries grant citizenship to the children of their citizens. IOW, the child inherits citizenship from its parents. If nothing else, the mother is going to be known by nature of the birth, and the child would have at least her citizenship.

(Exceptions exist, but they exist for Jus Soli as well)

[–] farmgineer@nord.pub 3 points 14 hours ago

This is true. I was thinking of some worst-case scenarios as to implementation where they decide that those people who gave birth to those children weren't really American or whatnot. I would not put it past the administration to deny applications for any and every reason they think they can get away with.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago

UN conventions because these people would essentially be stateless?

You think the cult cares?

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 8 points 15 hours ago

Twofold thoughts on this. First, it's the same thing they do everywhere: if they can't get the big win, they start chipping away at the edges, the fringe cases that let them establish precedents they can use later.

And secondly, it's a defensive move, to further differentiate the territories from the states, so that future efforts to give statehood to these areas will fail. In a really cynical viewpoint, it establishes subservient status for territories, including future "acquisitions" like they keep referring to

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Wouldn't that be unconstitutional unless those territories are removed from US jurisdiction?

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 1 points 12 hours ago

It's never stopped them before