Trump's *Unconstitutional Redefining* of American Citizenship.
Fixed That For You.
1
CockBrotherApr 1, 2026
+1
Yes. Title is complete BS.
1
443AuthorityApr 1, 2026
+1
Disgusting that this is even being entertained by the supreme court.
1
Infamous_Employer_85Apr 1, 2026
+1
Just to be clear, virtually every country in North and South America have Jus Soli (Birthright citizenship), Jus Soli in the US is based upon British common law, and was added to the constitution in 1866, it would take another amendment to remove Jus Soli.
1
KreiriApr 1, 2026
+1
The word "crackdown" was below screen for me, so the post title read "US Supreme Court signals doubts over Donald Trump’s citizenship" and that sure was a moment. And then I scrolled down.
1
[deleted]Apr 1, 2026
+1
[removed]
1
arizonadirtbag12Apr 1, 2026
+1
Given that a) the EO isn’t retroactive and b) it only requires *one* parent to have *legal residence* not even citizenship…
…yeah not so much. This change doesn’t apply to any of them, and even if it did they’d be born citizens.
This EO is dumb, and should be struck down. Don’t get me wrong.
But your comment is somehow even dumber. You’ve proven yourself just as illiterate as our President. The EO is published. You can go read it anytime. It’s not long. Then again I doubt Trump has read it either. So you’re in good company.
1
Odd_PerfectApr 1, 2026
+1
The EO specifically said anyone born after 1/25/25
1
arizonadirtbag12Apr 1, 2026
+1
Exactly.
So not Baron, or Don Jr, or Ivanka.
1
Odd_PerfectApr 1, 2026
+1
Yeah this is the annoying part. We make fun of MAGA for being stupid brainwashed sheep but then you have left leaning listnookors who don’t even bother reading the actual executive orders and just go by news headlines, making us look bad as they spread bad information.
1
arizonadirtbag12Apr 1, 2026
+1
Same way you get downvoted to hell and back if you point out this is just the citizenship policy of progressive European nations.
Which doesn’t make the EO *right,*
it’s still one more naked power grab by the executive, wildly unconstitutional, and worth opposing vigorously on those grounds alone.
But we don’t have to pretend it would be the end of all freedom in our society if, like, we didn’t extend citizenship to the children of tourists. Progressive western nations have this policy *today,* and it’s fine, and they’d argue it’s sensible. Just like gun control and universal healthcare.
Instead it’s just a bunch of screeching by people who haven’t read the order, understand *none* of the nuances of citizenship law around the world, nor do they even have a *School House Rocks* understanding of basic civics. Like man these people are on my “side” but boy howdy are they morons.
1
Odd_PerfectApr 1, 2026
+1
What other nations have is irrelevant though. They don’t have the 14th amendment.
1
arizonadirtbag12Apr 1, 2026
+1
It’s not relevant to whether the EO is legal. It isn’t. Obviously.
It *is* relevant to whether the underlying policy the EO enacts is, judged on its own merits, problematic. Which I would (and have) argued vigorously that it…isn’t. Like at all.
The problem here is the end run around the fourteenth amendment, or at least the attempt to have his installed kangaroo court overturn a century of precedent in how the fourteenth is interpreted. I assume we agree there.
But everyone yelling about “but like who would even be a citizen then?!” and “this would be the end of America as we know it!” is just rabble rousing. We have to oppose this EO because the law and the Constitution matter, not because the substance of the policy is any particular problem.
(Though if we did want to implement such a policy, and did so via the amendment process as is proper, then we’d also need to work on like maybe kinda sorta making access to a standard ID showing citizenship/residency easier…because Real ID is still a mess.)
14 Comments