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.

    • bitchkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      Musk doesn’t have birthright citizenship. As much as we wish he’d just go away, I hope you’re not suggesting they should expand this program to strip naturalized citizens.

      • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        17 days ago

        He worked on a student visa after dropping school.

        That’s illegal, so he shouldn’t have qualified for naturalization without correcting that and leaving the country before reapplying.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              17 days ago

              I feel like there should be a saying involving palm trees with this, as their bark is very different and they are actually closer to grasses than most trees.

              Chop down a palm tree and count the rings to see how old it is, the answer is 0. They don’t make rings, much like a blade of grass. They are fn dinosaur grass basically. (They were around back then). It’s also part of how they can bend and not snap as easily during high winds.

      • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        17 days ago

        Only thing naturalized about him is his bank account which is what has kept him off the icehouse list

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        Will be funny if they have a falling out and Trump rage enforces this against him.

  • UncleJosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    My 86-year old mother is house-bound but she is the daughter of two immigrants who came over in the 1910’s, so I guess she’s gonna be shipped off to another country. I have no idea if my brother and I, both in our 50’s would be subjected to deportation considering we haven’t lived with her in over 30 years.

    Maybe the US shouldn’t have elected an out-and-out racist asshole.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      I’m the child of an immigrant and a native-born person. So does half of my citizenship get taken away?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          17 days ago

          The lower half. I might lose my penis, but I get to keep my brain.

          Unless this is a vertical bisection of course. Then the left side because I’m left-handed.

          Although I wouldn’t have my right brain hemisphere anymore… Now I’m confused.

  • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Not sure how he plans on deporting people who were born in the United States and have no citizenship anywhere else since not every country automatically gives it to people’s children born abroad.

    They would effectively have no home country to deport them too.

      • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        17 days ago

        Slavery is much more economically viable than extermination. So, thank you capitalism, I think?

        • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          17 days ago

          But you also have to keep slaves relatively healthy to maintain them working. If you slaves get too hungry, they can’t do whatever labor you make em do. If they get real sick, it’s going to affect your other slaves.

          And human slaves usually don’t put their heads down and do it forever. A lot of the Nazi labor camps massacred their captives because they started uprisings.

          There is nothing economically feasible with what they want. They just think they can do what they want and he even richer. Which is why you can look at the entirety of recorded human history for these same mistakes being repeated over and over again.

          • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 days ago

            They also don’t seem to know or tend to forget that it only needs a relatively small percentage of the population to flat out resist for society to stop working. Only a few hundreds of thousands of protesters in East Germany brought the country to its knees and effectively ended the Cold War.

    • CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      Hello. Australian here. Just ask our sadistic government. We do it all the time. Hint: It involves putting people in camps.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      He was already shocked Bahamas turned down his “offer” to send them deported people. I think it’s only a matter of time before they send a plane somewhere anyhow and get US flights promptly banned everywhere.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Even bigger question: what then?

      Say you deport a citizen of Mexican origin to Mexico. Can’t they just, you know, go back? They’re citizens, with a passport/id.

      The only alternative is to strip them (at least de facto) of their citizenship, which is literally a Hitler move (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_über_den_Widerruf_von_Einbürgerungen_und_die_Aberkennung_der_deutschen_Staatsangehörigkeit, only a German source, unfortunately).

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        Happened to my grandfather. A Jew born in Germany who emigrated to England in the late 1920s. I have his naturalisation papers from when he became a citizen of the UK in 1936 and his nationality is listed as “stateless.”

      • bitchkat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        You don’t even need to read the article. The title states quite clearly this is about citizenship not residence.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      They would effectively become stateless. And how they do what from there depends a lot on where they are forcefully relocated to. Assuming the majority will be forced into Mexico, Mexico has an established legal process for accepting refugees. Through the application process, if approved, you (and your family unit) would gain permanent residency. It’s not the same as citizenship, but you could stay there indefinitely and have mostly the same rights as Mexican citizens. You might run into issues with getting passports and traveling internationally, but at the least, you would be able to stay in Mexico. That depends on your refugee application being approved, and I’d imagine when the numbers cross over into the millions their established system would break down a bit and there would probably be very long delays during which you could be deported.

      If it’s somewhere else, well, it varies widely. Most of the Caribbean islands have comparatively smaller populations and probably only handle migration on a small scale. It’s very hard to say how things would play out. Many would almost certainly be forced to illegally immigrate back into America.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      17 days ago

      He doesn’t plan on shit. Even this Supreme Court would tell him to fuck off.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    i wish everyone would get rid of the assumption that the constitution will protect you

    “that’s unconstitutional!!!” doesn’t mean jack shit anymore

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    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.

    • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      18 days ago

      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.

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        17 days ago

        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…

    • DogPeePoo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      17 days ago

      Start by getting rid of Ted Cruz, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Melania and all the Trump kids.

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        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.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      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.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        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.

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 days ago

          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.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        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.

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 days ago

          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.

    • dunidane@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      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.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        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.

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          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.

  • rational_lib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    17 days ago

    “Doesn’t the 14th Amendment pose a problem for that plan?”
    “Not a problem, no one handles amendments like me. 14 amendments is nothing, when I…when I do the Christ stuff before food I do 15, 30, 100 amendments. And people say ‘Wow, you are so good with the amendments, no one does the amendments like you.’ So I got that all taken care of.”

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      He actually already opened an office to review and attempt to take away citizenship from people who already earned it, back in 2020.

    • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 days ago

      The rules do not apply to the rich. I think at this point he has made that clear over and over again.

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    18 days ago

    I am not a lawyer, this is my interpretation of the situation.

    So heres what I think will happen.

    Birthright citizenship will not be completely gone.

    To recap, 14th Amendment, Section1 says:

    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.

    What will most likely happen is the DoJ under trump will take it to the supreme court, then the 6 conservatives will rule that unauthorized immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, so therefore their children do not get citizenship at birth. Maybe this is retroactive, maybe it applies from then on, I don’t know.

    But thats the most likely scenario.

    Because we had a very conservative court back in the 1898 (remember, black people in this era couldn’t even vote in southern states) that ruled that (United States v. Wong Kim Ark)

    a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.

    So I doubt this supreme court is more conservative than a 1898 supreme court so they most likely are not overturning that.

    Basically, that court ruled that children of permanent residents have birthright citizenship, but never ruled on whether children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship. This 6-3 supreme court is gonna answer that. Which is gonna be a no, unfortunately.

    • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      I concur with your interpretation. But as for your final line, I’m not sure why this interpretation is unfortunate. We need to streamline and overhaul the immigration process for sure, but why is encouraging unregulated immigration a good thing?

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        I say unfortunately because there could be problems with a child of an undocumented immigrant that is born and grew up in the US for their entire life, then suddenly losing their citizenship because of a court decision.

        Maybe if the decision did not apply retroactively, then I’d might be okay with it.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 days ago

      More likely, a lower court shoots it down, and there’s no basis for an appeals court to do anything different. They tweak it and try again. That one also fails. Try again.

      Eventually, they get something that threads the needle. This is how the “Muslim ban” went.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          17 days ago

          There are two other factors at work:

          • A bunch of conservative-related businesses know what a clusterfuck it will be for their bottom line; that will push the Supreme Court to pretend there’s no issue here
          • The Supreme Court can only take so many cases at a time

          Even if we assume they’re just going to bypass the usual ladder up the federal court system, they can’t do that on everything just as a practical matter.

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    Anyone in the US who believes they have any sort of legal protection is just delusional. The only protection that exists there is through money.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      We’re basically going back to an older era where rights are much less certain. Think of the rights people in the US had before Roe v Wade. Yep, we are basically back to before Roe v Wade was passed. That’s the America we live in.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    It’s never going to stop surprising me when a politician says he’s going to do something, I tell people, and then he does it but so many people were still caught completely off guard. I imagine this is how many in the UK feel about Brexit.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    What I’m reading is that they want to deport Americans in “mixed status families”, and then go after them as criminals when they don’t just continue paying taxes and fulfilling the ridiculous reporting requirements as they try to resettle their life in a new home and the US demands that their new local residence actually be treated as foreign assets. Which is great for the rich, because it basically saturates the system in such a way that the focus is taken away from rich tax evaders and tax avoidance schemes as it is driven to deal with these new “criminals”.