2w ago

Trump aims to end birthright citizenship, says American citizens with family here illegally may be deported

www.nbcnews.com Trump aims to end birthright citizenship, says American citizens with family here illegally may be deported

President-elect Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with “Meet the Press,” also said he is open to working with Democrats on a legislative way to keep Dreamers in the U.S.

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.

You're viewing a single thread.

171 comments

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.
- 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.
  
  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....
- Start by getting rid of Ted Cruz, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Melania and all the Trump kids.
  
  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.
- 14A S3 wasn't enforced, why should 14A S1 be?
  
  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.
  
  Not all persons, but children of permanent residents. (children of US citizens already has birthright citizenship, they are expanding onto that)
  The issue of unauthorized immigrants were never answered in the court case.
- Whether or not children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship was never ruled on. A 1898 case (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) ruled that children of permanent residents have birthright citizenship, but never said anything about unauthorized immigrants.
  This supreme court could rule on it, which is probably gonna be that unauthorized immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", therefore, their children do not get birthright citizenship.
  I mean that's the loophole they are gonna exploit, I don't agree with it, but that's what is gonna happen.
  
  which is probably gonna be that unauthorized immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
  From opening arguments podcast they said that was intended if say Mexico or Canada invaded, the soldiers bring their wives who give birth, then those kids are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and not to be granted citizenship.
  Of course lawyers can twist anything and scotus is rigged, so expect that.
  
  Fun fact (or rather, a not-so-fun fact)
  Native Americans living in reservations used to be considered not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so they weren't given US citizenship, even thought their ancestors have been here before the first colonists. If that bullshit can happen, nothing is stopping this biased af supreme court to say that undocumented immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
  Also, conservative justices often cited this idea of "Original Intent". So they could argue that the original intent of the people who wrote the admendment was give only legal immigrants and their children the birthright citizenship, not people who sneaked in.
  Theres so many loopholes they can exploit. They are the final say on what the constitution means, after all.
  
  If they're not "subject to the jurisdiction", doesn't that mean they can just commit whatever crimes they want? Could they even be deported?
  But that assumes the Republicans would be logical and consistent, when they are neither.
  
  Nah.
  If, say, a foreign countey invaded the us.
  Ok, say, Canada invaded New York. People born in New York after Canada's invasion no longer have birthright citizenship. And let's say, the US had a federal abortion ban nationwide. You are born in Canadian Occupied New York. You are a woman. You accidentally got pregnant. No worries, you just get an abortion, its legal in Canada.
  Okay a few month after you get the abortion, the US counterattacks and recaptures New York.
  You are still not gonna be a US citizen.
  But you got an illegal abortion. You are gonna go on trial for getting an illegal abortion.
  Nope you are still not a citizen.
  #Shenanigans.
  
  Couldn't Trump just declare it that it's an official act?
- They are going to claim that if their patents are here illegally they aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. No matter how stupid that idea is their supreme court may let it go anyway. They already shit all over other parts of the 14th.
  
  Doesn't saying they're not "subject to jurisdiction" mean they're outside general reach of the legal system, like a crime-drama character claiming diplomatic immunity?
  I'd love to see someone pull that string.
  
  Birthright. If you are born here, you are a citizen. That's what they are talkin1g about.
  
  There's no confusion over the subject, just an expectation that the current SCOTUS could play the "Constitution doesn't apply if the mother had no legal standing to actually be in the US" argument. That technically that hasn't been established, and that there's an implicit expectation that people giving birth in the US are legally recognized to be in the US, and all bets are off if the mother isn't legally allowed in the US but gives birth in the US anyway. To the extent they seek being explicit about legal standing, they may point to the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" words as stating an illegal presence means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the state.
- Let's see how much the Constitution matters in a month and a half. Everyone who responds to the upcoming Trump madness with "it's unconstitutional" are in for a rude awakening.
- DoJ: "My lord, is that... constitutional?"
  SCOTUS: "I will make it constitutional"

171 comments