• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • j0ester@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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?

  • WatDabney@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

      • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m not a USer so correct me if wrong here, but is the implication then that something can be considered constitutional in one state but not in another? How does that work?

        • chuymatt@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It doesn’t. The ruling makes little sense and is just showing that playing the game with absolutely no ethics works very well.

  • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

    • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.