Trump Says He’s Moving Forward With Ending Birthright Citizenship After Supreme Court Gives OK
Trump Says He’s Moving Forward With Ending Birthright Citizenship After Supreme Court Gives OK
So literally what happened here is Trump said, "I want to violate the Constitution" and the Supreme Court said, " Okay — go ahead."
And that's it for the rule of law in the US.
All that's left now is to tally the mass murders along the way to the inevitable collapse of the US, and to hope that our descendents can build something better out of the rubble.
That’s not literally what happened at all. Trump said, “I want to violate the constitution and issued an order”. Then states cities and organizations sued across three cases and courts issued universal injunctions. Trump said “wah! Help me puppet kourt!” Then the Supreme Court was like, “be still mein führer. We will not allow these injunctions to apply to the entire nation. Only to those who have sued.”
They gave him second base. Let’s see if they go all the way for Don Don.
The US collapsing is going to absolutely affect the rest of the world. This is very VERY bad.
Lest we forget:
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. 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.
Pretty hard to argue that “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” doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It’s not even in legalese. The fact that this wasn’t laughed out of court says everything.
That's what the Constitution says, and Trump now has nothing that can legally stop him from doing it.
Which means the Constitution is dead letter.
That goes both ways, and states need to start acting on it. They need to start passing a flurry of laws criminalizing ICE tactics. Pass laws making it a felony to:
They need to take cues from the anti-abortion playbook. Pass a law requiring all immigration detainees be transported in limousines. Require ICE to old prisoners in five star hotels. Require immigration officers to have at least two doctoral degrees. Make it a felony to do immigration enforcement without doing these things. Just start writing dozens of crazy laws criminalizing every aspect of ICE's operations. Then let the individual ICE agents try and challenge them individually.
They haven’t decided on the legality of it yet. They just decided that courts cannot issue universal injunctions. They can only stop it at a case by case level for those who are suing. If they decide it’s unconstitutional, then it’ll have to stop nationally, but a lot of damage can be done before then. I think they’ll decide in October…
It is just a fucking piece of paper.
If the judges and politicians and police don't care and no one else can do anything then it means nothing.
It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.
North Korea of America is where we are now.
Uggh. I can work out whether to upvote you for the accurate summary of the source of law & state power or downvote you for the utter idiocy of the invasion statement.
Russia can't - they're struggling to take over a country a fifth their size and have burnt through their Soviet stockpiles.
UK & EU certainly won't invade, at most they'd send a peacekeeping force to protect civilians at a UN request (UN probably wouldnt pass it)
Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.
Mexico might just on principle (payback's a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.
Same for South American Asian and African countries.
That leaves China, and if you think the Chinese are stupid enough to insert themselves in your civil war and create a sole enemy for both sides to fight you have zero understanding of the Chinese strategy.
The Chinese will wait for you all to decimate the country and each other, then come in and buy up the bits they want. Oh and invade Taiwan while y'all are busy destroying your country.
Putin's plan to destroy the US has worked magnificently.
It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.
No other nations are going to be invading the US, let alone multiple of them. They don't have the logistics for it.
That’s technically not what they ruled on
The problem is and has always been "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
People have been twisting that to mean that anyone that isn't born to American citizen parents means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
I mean, the 2nd amendment is clearly only about militias, but you can see how that went.
States need to criminalize the behavior of ICE officers and start arresting them en masse. ICE agents will be free to challenge their imprisonment individually.
No state shall....but the feds can?
He controls the feds. He's certainly not stopping himself.
If you end birthright citizenship, then nobody gets to be a citizen by birth. If you can't be a citizen by birth, the only way to become a citizen is naturalization. If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
And if immigrants don’t need due process and can be sent to concentration camps then it’s really easy to make anyone disappear
If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
What do they think America is founded on?
A mix of first generation immigrants, 2nd generation, 3rd generation, 4th generation, a few remaining natives.
100% first generation immigrants would be a major shift.
A bunch of religous people who were welcomed into multiple countries but then got mad that everyone around them didn't belive in their exact same religon they did so they found a new place and committed some genocide before building up a mythology about how they had to do it in order to flee religious persecution?
This was initially what was Donald’s EO and such, but blue states (of course) noticed he fucked up (imagine having so much money and you can’t have a better team looking over your shit), that they had to change it.
Now it states that parents in the US legally can have a kid and it will be a citizen. But not parents who’s here visiting and such. But what if a mom is an illegal and dad is legal? What would the kid be?
But what if a mom is an illegal and dad is legal? What would the kid be?
How brown is their skin?
The alternative to birthright is blood right or inheritance right.
Which is a right based on your conditions of birth, and therefore a form of birthright citizenship. Both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Solis are forms of birthright citizenship.
At what point does everyone say "if he's not following the law, then neither should we"?
Guilty. I've stolen 2 elections already and dogwhistled so much
Can you please just give them back? We've been looking for them literally everywhere
Also, those whistles give me a headache
so it was YOU!!
I'm ready if you are
At the very least, I would like to see every Democratic lawmaker calling for the open violation of Supreme Court rulings. They are a fundamentally illegitimate institutions. Their opinions should be given less respect than the opinions of a shit-covered hobo holding an "the end is near" sign by the side of the road.
That point was sometime around the first term but the "wE aRe NOt thERe Yet" crowd keeps moving the goal post
At what point are you willing to sacrifice your life for your cause?
I break laws all the time now. They have no meaning. It's like the wild west now
As long as it doesn't immediately result in you dead or in jail.
I came to that conclusion when he won the election despite his numerous crimes.
He is much closer to his stated goal
The power to deport any natural Born Citizen on demand for no reason at all
He has stated he wants.... Needs this
On Exactly why he has been vague
That means him first motherfucker because Trump is a birthright citizen. His grandfather was an immigrant.
Not like me is like 12 generations removed but still immigrant. Except on my mother's side that native American. But guess Trump will deport them too, because if you got technical they also are immigrants.
Wait ... Doesn't "citizenship" mean where you're born?
It's either where you're born or where you live. Which is it?
Wtf even is citizenship then?
"I'm from Ireland" is synonymous with "I'm Irish"... Right?
So if you're born in America, wouldn't you... Be American?
If he takes that away, you aren't just magically from nowhere, you're still American.
This is stupid and makes no sense, it's all just classism and racism. I hate everything.
Its the same as the election between Obama and McCain, in ways a lot of people dont realize.
Obama, by virtue of having a non-traditional name and not being white, was hounded by birthers despite being born an American citizen clear as day with absolutely no question about it.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone the year before people born in the canal zone were granted citizenship at birth. Arguably he was not a citizen at birth under the definitional requirements of the constitution to be president. He was naturalized as a citizen retroactively.
Palin is part native, and was pretty heavily involved with Alaska Native movements that rejected US sovereignty and thereby rejected claims to citizenship. But no one talked about that either because shes also largely seen as just being a white American.
And yet Obama, who was American thru and thru from birth without question, never was involved with Hawaiian sovereignty movements, is the one whos citizenship was questioned.
“White makes right” is the rule of law to these people
Sounds about white.
Ted Cruz ran in the Republican presidential primary despite being an Albertan
Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?
Only in the new world continents. In Africa, Europe, and Asia it normally means what country your parents and grandparents are from, unless someone in the chain naturalises to a different country.
Yup, and when you don’t have any citizenship, you’re stateless. It causes a lot of issues internationally, because a stateless person can’t have a passport, can’t immigrate, can’t hold a legal job because they can’t get a work visa without a passport, etc… Notably, the US is one of the few countries that refused to sign on with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Basically, the convention would prevent a country from revoking someone’s citizenship if they don’t have a valid claim elsewhere. And the US refused to sign.
You've just given it ten times more thought than the Trump team has.
Most people are citizens of where they also live and give birth so this distinction doesn't come up in most cases. But for children born to immigrants or travelers it does.
Citizenship can either be assigned by where you were born, or who you were born to.
Birthright citizenship, as we use the term in the US, is mostly a new world invention. In nearly all countries in the americas, any children born here are citizens without exception. No matter the parents, no matter the circumstances.
In the old world, most countries require a parent to be a citizen in order for the child to also be a citizen.
Generally if an american couple gives birth in Europe, the child will just be american, despite where they were born. If a European couple gives birth in any of the americas, their child will be a citizen of the americas, despite anything else
You operate under the assumption that this is a public service. That would make no sense.
But if the assumption is them accumulating more power, then it makes perfect sense.
To be honest I get more mad at people being surprised by their actions. At this point it is so obvious what is happening and why. How can anyone be surprised by any of this?
"Why does this rabid dog bites? How does this make for a better world?"
It is a rabid dog, how could you ever expect something positive to begin with? Put it down already. You don't argue with crazy.
rabbit dog
The thing about ending birthright citizenship is that it would just create a stateless individual. Where would they even deport children of undocumented immigrants to? Are they going to make an El Salvadorian gulag for them too?
The former SCOTUS ruling on the 14th amendment was really clear - if you are born here, you are a citizen regardless of your parent's legal immigration status. I don't understand why the SCOTUS is even bothering to hear this case when even a constitutional literalist would have difficulty trying to weasel-word their way into a ruling that supports the Republican position on this one.
I can thing of few things more cruel than a state that looks at a literal child who was born here, lived here all their lives, speaks the language, attends school, has friends and family and a support structure and would otherwise be indistinguishable from any other American child born to American-born parents, and deport them to a country they've never set foot in for no real discernible reason other than they are anti-immigrant racists.
So when someone has tried to rationalize ending birthright citizenship, they fixate in the "and subject to the jusrisdiction".
So they argue that a child born to parents who are citizens elsewhere are subject to the jurisdiction of the parents country of origin. To make this leap they say that language matching the intent should have been "and exclusively subject to the jurisdiction". Or else they might claim it can only apply to parents legally in the country, but that didn't let them block visa holders like they would want.
So technically it shouldn't still be able to make stateless individuals even with their rationalization, but that is of no comfort in any practical terms.
Furthermore aren't, at least some of, his kids from ? The youngest psychopath is definitely of imported genetics, does that mean the next oppositional president (ha, like Fatboy is ever going to let go of all that power now he's king of the us) could kick all tRUMPs offspring out?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
What people like you tend to forget, is that most countries (at least European countries that I know of), might not grant birth citizenship, but do grant citizenship by marriage, as soon as you marry someone from the country, you can apply for citizenship, meanwhile you can spend 40 years married to an american, living in the country and having 5 kids, and still not be considered american... That only happens there.
It is a human right, just not one that is universally respected.
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?"
Can Trump prove his citizenship, if this policy goes through?
His 1st & current wife were not citizens when those children were born. They should be deported.
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 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.
He won because he can delay actually following the law until he's dead because it will be impractical to stop him
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.
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.
The supreme court did give the ok saying that it comes down to states and individuals to stop it.
As much as I dislike the decision, they did not give the “ok”
The ruling was about how the lower courts handle injunctions. The court cases are playing out still.
I still hate the decision.
Effectively, anyone who does not have a lawyer who files a specific suit in a very short period of time can be deported at will. Saying it does not end the 14th Amendment is an exercise in English language mechanics, not in how it ends up affecting the world.
If you are high school student who is shipped off to a foreign prison, how likely do you think it is somebody will fight to bring you back?
Bunch of pansies. All they had to do is say No
And would have been the end of it. But they are scared of him for w/e reason. Trump can't even remember Barrett.
Look at roe vs wade. The Supreme Court said it’s up to the states which effectively killed abortion . The end result is going to be basically the same thing here
Read the dissents, they absolutely fucking did.
This
RIP the US Constitution
It is time to renew the Tree of Liberty.
Fuck that, time to arm Liberty Prime
This is fucking Stephen Miller's Nazi wet dream
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
this is insane
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.
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.
Wouldn't it be simpler if he just ended citizenship? Then he could freely oppress just about anyone.
Same thing if you can override constitutional rights by executive fiat without an amendment ratified by Congress.
Constitutional amendments are ratified by the states individually, not by Congress.
"Congratulations! You've just been promoted to US Deputy Secretary of State for the Trump Administration.. Thank you for your great ideas!"
I'm curious if this means that certain cities or states will become citizenship havens because their local courts decided to provide injunctions for their jurisdiction.
Probably not. I expect once the cases advance, SCOTUS will pick it up again fairly soon.
I’d like to pay a reporter to ask Trump how it feels to wipe his ass with the Constitution. I’d think it would be coarse and unpleasant, but he keeps doing it.
Ill just stick with Charmin or whatever.
Trump will then happily show his new line of merchandise. One is his "We The People" line of toilet paper. There's also his "Smooth Criminal" line, extra soft toilet paper with the entire criminal law printed on it.
Can the supreme court just straight up ignore the constitution, under the constitution?
Surely no, right?
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
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.
The supreme court did not give the OK. They said that you have to sue individually or as a class action and kicked it back down to the lower court. And several orgs are currently petitioning for class action status.
Edit: they also said courts can't issue nationwide injunctions, they have to be narrower.
When talking about birthright citizenship, how do you get narrower than nationwide injunctions?
What the Republicans in the Supreme Court seem to be arguing is that the president can ignore the law as long as the people affected can't afford a lawsuit.
so according to the new laws, if you go up in the generations far enough, no american is a citizen.
A goldmine for selective enforcement.
On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder.
So is this retroactive? Do states that are not challenging take effect in 30 days? Who the fuck knows. Make sure to do jack shit to stop all of this.
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.
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.
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.
Moron is literally BEGGING
So like every country in Europe, got it.
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.
Of all the things European countries do, that's the one you like?
It's not quite that simple.
For example:
Since 1851, children born in France to at least one parent born in France are born French (‘double ius soli’).
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.
This is the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. As a lawyer for the federal government, I need everyone to know that this officially marks the end of United States rule of law. Protect yourselves, and godspeed.
Billionaires and politicians. No one else matters. Don't be distracted by the broke Nazis at ICE. The true threat numbers in the hundreds.
Well, honestly, billionaires and politicians also wouldn't have any guaranteed rights. No one would, because anybody could have citizenship taken away at any moment: we are all citizens because we were born here and no other reason.
I'm coping so hard by hoping that we swing very hard to the left, if only just so that these cynical, fossilized assholes live to see their bullshit rulings used against them.
I wish we could even agree where left was, but we have as many Zohran Momandi supporters as people who think Zohran's party are satan worshipping paid shills.
This is definitely worrisome.
But is it the end of the Constitution quite yet?
The Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on the executive order trying to negate birthright citizenship, they said that lower courts couldn’t block EO’s at a national level.
Implicitly, their not commenting on the EO feels like they’ll let it stand when the case arrives, if they choose to hear it. Then I’d say the US Constitution is toast.
I’m an engineer, not a lawyer. I’d love to hear what someone more knowledgeable about this thinks.
They ended the ability of the Judiciary to check the Executive. That's the very foundation of the government, set out in the Constitution: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation01.html
So yeah, it's the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution.
There isn't going to be a single moment where the constitution stops existing. It's not like a light switch. It's a rapid erosion, like the start of a landslide, and the snow is already moving
Yes it is. Trump can effectively ignore any constitutional amendment for more than long enough to start sending people to concentration camps. This also probably isn't the end of it, as I doubt the justices will be more willing to stand up to him in the future once he's consolidated power further.
The fact they took a copout path to not speak to the important part is a worrisome sign. If the matter were actually before them, they may rule it as unconstitutional, but they seem to be inclined to have the matter never be technically before them.
A district ruling against the order? Let it stand without taking up the case and potentially setting it nationwide. The people have no standing to appeal because they won their case.
Oh look, a jusge in Texas ruled in favor of the order, all of a sudden the government is shuffling immigrants around and deporting all birthright citizens from that jurisdiction.