United States | News & Politics @midwest.social Nemeski @lemm.ee 1d ago

Trump asks Supreme Court to allow him to end birthright citizenship

edition.cnn.com /2025/03/13/politics/birthright-citizenship-trump-supreme-court/index.html

19 comments

I'm really not sure what happens if the Supreme Court backs this cunt on this. It's very clearly stated in the 14th amendment that people born in the US are citizens: "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."

So obviously, a functional supreme court would immediately rule against him, since it's very clearly written in as an amendment to the constitution, and their job is to interpret the fucking constitution. But this is the exact polar opposite of a functional supreme court. It's a kangaroo court whose function, it seems, is telling the emperor that his clothes look fabulous.

If they're allowed to just interpret a thing that very clearly says one thing as saying something else... what is the remedy for that? I mean, other than a shit load of high velocity bullet deliveries, of course. It's not like the supreme court answers to any other body.
- But their parents are ee-lee-gulls!
  
  That means they are "subject of the jurisdiction thereof." If they weren't subject to the jurisdiction, that would mean they are not here illegally.
  
  The kind of people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US include agents of a foreign government, such as diplomats... or invading soldiers.
  
  That's the problem here: He is trying to put "immigrants" in the same category as "enemy combatants".
- War. The alternative is a civil war.
  
  I mean, that's pretty much covered under the whole "other than a shit load of high velocity bullet deliveries" bit, right?
Immigrants in the country illegally, the theory goes, are subject to the jurisdiction of their native homeland.

Ok, if immigrants here illegally aren't subject to US jurisdiction, under whose authority are they being detained and deported?
- The answer to that question is truly terrifying.
  
  The answer is "The military".
  
  He is trying to declare "immigrants" to be in the same category as "enemy combatants".
  
  In a Red Dawn situation, the enemy invaders would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. They would not be owed 5th amendment rights to due process; they would not be owed 4th amendment rights against search and seizure. Any rights they have would be guaranteed by treaty and legislation, not the constitution.
  
  By declaring them outside the jurisdiction of the US, he is saying their presence here is an act of war.
  
  And here I thought he was legitimizing sovereign citizens
Wouldn't that invalidate himself as a citizen? Because his parents were immigrants that birthed that piece of human shit from a rotten pile of garbage that is his mother's womb.
- I don't like him either, but I also prefer accurate information.
  
  I believe this is only applicable to people born to illegal immigrants.
  
  According to Wikipedia, his mother became a US citizen in 1942, and he was born in 1946, so this wouldn’t have applied to him.
  
  I'm interested to hear other thoughts about this that I may not have considered.
  
  if neither parent is a US citizen or permanent resident, the child wouldn't have US citizenship by birth. notably, Kamala Harris would have been ineligible for the Presidency under this rule, since her parents were on student visas when she was born. (though the Heritage Foundation maintains they wouldn't retroactively strip citizenship but still... yikes.)
  
  also, the issue before the Court concerns a TRO blocking implementation of the policy change. they're asking for the Court to rule that TROs must apply only to named plaintiffs. that's a separate issue from the legality of the EO itself, but it's actually scarier, since it would neuter the lower courts' last meaningful check on the Executive's power.
Fucking asshole.

19 comments