Supreme Court to decide if Trump can end birthright citizenship

Imagine being more racist than the same people who ruled that “separate but equal” was a perfectly valid doctrine.

They will do everything in their power to prevent that from happening, up to and including the mass disenfranchisement of voters and/or suspending elections entirely. The more chaos he can create, the better. It will only bolster his declaration of martial law.

We are in total, 100% agreement on this. That is why I said if they side with Trump, that an EO can override the clear text of the constitution, they've effectively abdicated their power to the executive. The only answer to this is "No, the Executive can't strike a constitutional amendment". Anything else is an abdication of their sole job to interpret and enforce the constitution.

Wait for the “we took your citizenship so we keep your spoils” and deportations of people but not assets legally earned… Déjà vu…

The argument is “They accidentally didn’t write what they meant.” This is a constitution annihilating decision, if made. In the past, mis-written law was treated as law, regardless, and a bug to be fixed. If law is exclusively the intent of the writer, to be decided by the reader, and independent of the text that they wrote, then law does not exist but anything other than the whims of rulers. And before anyone smugly says “always has been,” *this is not normal.* Actual law exists elsewhere in the world. Actual law has existed in the United States. Stop giving up in advance.

given the current makeup of the court and assuming gorsuch votes against (which i think he most likely will) it really comes down to kavanaugh and barrett we're so fucked lmao

there going to stake themselves to "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by saying that these children are citizens of their foreign countries and thus this does not apply.

They back Leonard Leo and the rest of the monied interest that owns our country. Yam t*** is just a carnival barker meant to take up all the oxygen so they can slither around in the dark without repercussions.

I don't know. Somehow "well regulated militia" was changed to mean everybody. Conservative justices will just make shit up if it's something they want.

>Take the outcome you want and work backwards This is how all MAGA arguments work

Conservatives don't argue in good faith.

It would also mean that anyone who is not a citizen would no longer enjoy equal protection under the law. 14th amendment Part 1, rest of the paragraph after how citizenship is determined. > 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.** The 1898 case came about BECAUSE Texas was trying to use that second part and apply unequal protection of the law on immigrants. Using the argument that they are not “subject to the jurisdiction“ of the state, and thus didn’t enjoy equal protection as citizens.

Crime is legal with one simple trick!

The areas where US law applies are already defined elsewhere though, the question at hand with the 14th amendment was what the amendment meant precisely by people who were subject to US jurisdiction.

If you are a diplomat from another country and you, along with your family, have diplomatic immunity, if you have a child on US soil, that child does NOT get automatic US citizenship. [https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3](https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3) "Foreign diplomats enjoy certain immunities under international law. The spouse and child of a diplomat generally enjoy similar immunities. Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” DHS regulations, however, have long allowed these children to choose to be considered lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from the time of birth."

If you squint at "foreign invaders or occupiers" you can sort of see how undocumented migrants in particular might be viewed as falling in the same category. Essentially, people who have imposed their presence on the United States without permission under any law of the United States. They're "overthrowing" the United States in the matter of their own presence until removal. The problem obviously is that Republicans like to pretend all immigrants are "illegals" because they consider immigration laws to be illegitimate since *they* didn't personally vote for them, and the Trump administration is declaring people who are lawfully in the United States to be "illegals" by unilaterally revoking their status without due process. Obviously this is all illegitimate, but it's easy to see how acknowledging something fairly innocuous like "people who are in the country illegally should be removed" can seem like tacit support for all the extreme actions Trump is pursuing. Of course, the reason this is a problem in the first place is because of a systematic refusal to enforce the law here. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported a system where undocumented workers are employed as exploitable labour as a replacement for slavery. Republicans rail against "illegals" in order to ensure that these workers don't gain legal status so they can continue to be exploited, and Democrats advocate against removing people in the country illegally in the name of compassion but really in the name of profits. Both have been complicit in perpetuating a breakdown in the rule of law, and it was inevitable that this would lead to an extreme response at some point. Now you're dealing with the extreme response. Good luck with that. It is telling that nobody ever seems to go after the businesses *employing* undocumented migrants, though.

Only those with diplomatic immunity would not be subject to state/federal jurisdiction. Children of diplomats don’t get US Citizenship upon birth in the US. If your parents weren’t here as diplomats, then when you were born here, you have birthright citizenship.

It is worth noting that when you are a lawyer, you have clients. If you are a lawyer for the government, your clients are the elected officials who sent the policy positions that you take. The Trump Administration has been particularly vigorous in demanding that all government attorneys toe the line in zealously advocating for the government's preferred outcome. They fired the attorney who admitted to the judge that they had deported kilmar Abrego Garcia by mistake because the Trump Administration was demanding that he continue to assert that the judge had no authority to prevent the deportation and that Garcia was a criminal or whatever. Grammatical arguments not withstanding, that is the essence of the argument the government is offering. But make no mistake they are offering it because that's what the administration is demanding that they offer. It is, after all their choice to work there every lawyer has arguments they don't particularly like from time to time. With that said. There are literally hundreds of doj attorney positions available right now. I would not touch those positions with a 10-ft pole.

Yup. The Constitution itself was simply some individuals banding together to create an agreement stronger than any individual that these rights exist. So that if any individual violated them, the stronger group could step in and punish that violation. What stops a similarly strong group from instead banding together to take whatever they please from any marginalized group they take? Nothing at all. Hence, Nazi Germany. (Or the bulk of relations between the U.S. and the native tribes that existed here prior…)

We’ve seen in Alaska how rank choice removes the extremist candidates. It is a system that works. But the deliberate misinformation campaign waged against rank choice voting up here is so much that it’s back on the ballot for repeal again this year. The right will get it repealed eventually in Alaska. They prey on the ignorance of uninformed voters who don’t take the time to learn the simple method of voting in a rank choice election, or they lie and claim it gives one voters multiple votes for one candidate. It is asinine and so frustrating to watch my state, having done one really great thing, now possibly going to backpedal.

First past the post only allows this of voters are illogical and uneducated. Regardless of rank choice or not, no voter should have any issue understanding what the authoritarian stands for. At a certain point people have to acknowledge that the true weakness of democracies are voters who cannot think critically and cannot understand what they’re observing. Basically, idiots are a cancer to society that begin tearing it apart once they hit a certain mass. Idiocy isn’t fixable by rank choice.

The EO cannot modify the constitution, no. The *Court* can modify the interpretation of the constitution, allowing the EO to take effect. Similarly, as you note EOs are not laws. In this case the EO in question is merely a policy memo stating how the executive will *apply* the law. That it is in direct contradiction with a previous Court ruling is why it has not already gone into effect, and why the Court is ruling on it now. As for your slippery slope hypothetical, saying brown people or Democrats aren’t citizens would *also* directly contradict both previous rulings of the Court and explicit statutes. Obviously at a certain point *anything* can happen, the Court could rule tomorrow that Trump is God King For Life and as long as the people with guns agree then that’s the new reality. Laws and constitutions are just words on paper. But for as long as we’re still kinda sorta pretending there are rules…and clearly we are, since this has gone to the Court instead of already taking effect a year ago…then see the above. Once we stop pretending there are rules? Stock up on ammo. Until then? We all benefit by pretending the rules matter, even if it feels like the other side isn’t.

Its even worse. You have just created a class of lawless people. Now any non citizen can come here and commit crimes and then just go back home and the only recourse is violence/death/war. Sounds like a great society to live in.

If there is no jurisdiction, Republicans will make it up.