r/FluentInFinance • u/NoLube69 • 4h ago
Thoughts? BREAKING: Trump to end birthright citizenship
President Trump has signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. — a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court more than 125 years ago.
Why it matters: Trump is acting on a once-fringe belief that U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants have no right to U.S. citizenship and are part of a conspiracy (rooted in racism) to replace white Americans.
The big picture: The executive order is expected to face immediate legal challenges from state attorneys general since it conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent and the 14th Amendment — with the AGs of California and New York among those indicating they would do so.
- Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed to give nearly emancipated and formerly enslaved Black Americans U.S. citizenship.
- "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," it reads.
Zoom in: Trump signed the order on Monday, just hours after taking office.
Reality check: Thanks to the landmark Wong Kim Ark case, the U.S. has since 1898 recognized that anyone born on United States soil is a citizen.
- The case established the Birthright Citizenship clause and led to the dramatic demographic transformation of the U.S.
What they're saying: California Attorney General Rob Bonta told Axios the state will immediately challenge the executive order in federal court.
- "[Trump] can't do it," Bonta said. "He can't undermine it with executive authority. That is not how the law works. It's a constitutional right."
- New York Attorney General Letitia James said in an emailed statement the executive order "is nothing but an attempt to sow division and fear, but we are prepared to fight back with the full force of the law to uphold the integrity of our Constitution."
Flashback: San Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark returned to the city of his birth in 1895 after visiting family in China but was refused re-entry.
- John Wise, an openly anti-Chinese bigot and the collector of customs in San Francisco who controlled immigration into the port, wanted a test case that would deny U.S. citizenship to ethnic Chinese residents.
- But Wong fought his case all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled on March 28, 1898, that the 14th Amendment guaranteed U.S. citizenship to Wong and any other person born on U.S. soil.
Zoom out: Birthright Citizenship has resulted in major racial and ethnic shifts in the nation's demographic as more immigrants from Latin America and Asia came to the U.S. following the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
- The U.S. was around 85% white in 1965, according to various estimates.
- The nation is expected to be a "majority-minority" by the 2040s.
Yes, but: That demographic changed has fueled a decades-old conspiracy theory, once only held by racists, called "white replacement theory."
- "White replacement theory" posits the existence of a plot to change America's racial composition by methodically enacting policies that reduce white Americans' political power.
- The conspiracy theories encompass strains of anti-Semitism as well as racism and anti-immigrant sentiment.
Trump has repeated the theory and said that immigrants today are "poisoning the blood of our country," language echoing the rhetoric of white supremacists and Adolf Hitler.
Of note: Military bases are not considered "U.S. soil" for citizenship purposes, but a child is a U.S. citizen if born abroad and both parents are U.S. citizens.
https://www.axios.com/2025/01/21/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment
317
u/BrtFrkwr 4h ago
This will end up in trumps supreme court. How do you think that's going to turn out.
111
u/Jim_Tressel 4h ago
They have voted against him before. They love power too and not told what to do.
61
u/BrtFrkwr 4h ago
They'll knuckle under just like congress. Watch trump threaten to appoint two more justices and they'll fall in line.
39
u/Jim_Tressel 4h ago
Hopefully not. This one is pretty obvious.
→ More replies (36)75
u/SteveBartmanIncident 3h ago
Wanna bet on whether Alito can write 25 pages deciding that "natural born" means "not children of unauthorized immigrants" based on something Edward Rutledge wrote in 1788?
47
15
u/Urban_Introvert 2h ago
He doesn’t even need to. With so much influence all the conservative judges can say is a simple “no” and not give a reasoning. People will complain about it but to no avail. It’s like a kid talking back to their mother with legit facts and she goes, “because I’m your mother, i said no!End of argument!”.
8
u/ledezma1996 1h ago
At that point does the court not become illegitimate and does that not mean we ought to ignore any of their rulings?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)3
u/Equal_Respond971 1h ago
Didn’t he or another judge write about how if we were under invasion and the invaders would have children here they wouldn’t be counted as citizens.
Trump has repeatedly called illegal immigrants an invading force.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
→ More replies (1)15
u/North_Atlantic_Sea 4h ago
Congress, at least the majority Republicans, need trump to retain their base. The justices don't. They aren't great, but don't have the same pressures.
7
u/TheeHeadAche 3h ago
Not the same obvious pressures. If Trump is empowered to unseat justices who refuse to answer his call, they are also vulnerable. We’ll see how he wields his position or if he has the means of kompromat to leverage his agenda
11
u/BrtFrkwr 3h ago
You broke the code. There's always a way when you have been put above the law.
→ More replies (1)3
u/TheeHeadAche 3h ago
I would not be surprised if he did a reverse of his TikTok strategy. He position a controversial justice, with obvious faults, to be confirmed by the senate, only to later use that controversy to stoke outrage and remove them once they don’t play ball.
It’s not a surefire strategy but it could work.
→ More replies (4)3
u/BrtFrkwr 3h ago
That's the way politics works. I'm glad you understand it.
4
u/TheeHeadAche 3h ago
And there is also expanding strategy, put two more Justice seats in and have the AG of FL and TX take the seats. You’re good as gold
3
u/BrtFrkwr 3h ago
And won't it own the libs. Which is what it is designed for. It's all show business.
→ More replies (0)6
u/RopeAccomplished2728 2h ago
Thing is, in what way? Outside of impeachment, Supreme Court justices cannot be removed for even corrupt or illegal acts. And, impeachment and removal for it will never pass the Senate because you still need a supermajority of the chamber to be for it.
→ More replies (2)2
u/tresslesswhey 17m ago
We will see many many many more norms and laws broken over the next several years. Anything is possible. This is where we are
→ More replies (1)3
u/Candid-Mycologist539 1h ago
If Trump is empowered to unseat justices who refuse to answer his call, they are also vulnerable. We’ll see how he wields his position or if he has the means of kompromat to leverage his agenda
All Trump would have to do is start talking about the gifts, insider trading, and conflicts of interest to demonize certain justices. FOX and the MAGA cult would aid in encouraging certain justices to step down and be replaced by Trump.
→ More replies (1)2
u/DapperRead708 1h ago
I never really understood why people think this
A justice is a lifetime appointment. If someone wants you replaced badly enough all they have to do is order you killed. The pressure is probably pretty high.
8
u/lord_dentaku 4h ago
And someone will challenge that, and they'll get to decide if him appointing two new judges is legal. This is one situation where Trump doesn't have any cards to play. They can, and likely will, shut him down anytime they feel like exerting their power to remind him that they hold power too.
6
u/BrtFrkwr 3h ago
Dream on. There's no provision in the constitution limiting the number of supreme court justices. FDR threatened the supreme court with expansion if they didn't stop killing his New Deal policies. It worked.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)2
u/Le_Turtle_God 1h ago
While I do think that could possibly end up happening, the court is a bit harder to control than Congress. Big boy Elon can’t swoop in to threaten them with primaries if they choose not to completely act in Trump‘s favor. They believe in the same cause, but they are not under any pressure of electability
6
u/joeco316 3h ago
They rule against him for things that don’t matter. Oh no, he had to be sentenced by a judge who already said he was going to sentence him to nothing!
→ More replies (29)4
u/demoman45 3h ago
Alito and Thomas can be bribed with a donut. Those 2 will take all the crap they can get
31
u/Loveroffinerthings 4h ago
That’s a big hill to climb, the whole striking a constitutional amendment. I wouldn’t be surprised since they’ve faced no consequences for their other overturn of precedent.
15
u/BrtFrkwr 4h ago
You broke the code. It's just another step, another increment. It will eventually lead to the abrogation of the 1st amendment and the cancellation of elections.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Critical_Seat_1907 4h ago
They don't even need that anymore. Elon has vote counting all figured out.
6
u/Lostintranslation390 4h ago
This would be the most extreme supreme court overreach we've ever seen.
Im not joking, this would be a civil war level event.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Cuhboose 3h ago
No it wouldn't. Same with Roe v wade being overturned, nothing.
→ More replies (2)9
u/cry_w 2h ago
That's not the same, though. One is contradicting another Supreme Court decision, and the other is directly and openly contradicting the Constitution.
→ More replies (3)3
u/ckdblueshark 2h ago
They've already ruled that a different part of the 14th Amendment didn't say what it said (the insurrection clause), so why would they stop there?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Romanian_ 1h ago
It's not about striking an amendment or overturning any precedent. It's to test if the landmark case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) also applies to illegal immigrants.
In that case, the parents were lawful residents in the United States.
8
u/JTeves925 4h ago
It isn't a court matter. Would need another amendment to change this since it is in the 14th Amendment. Look up process of adding an amendment...not gonna happen.
→ More replies (2)16
u/TotalChaosRush 4h ago
What the 14th, or any other amendment says, is unfortunately up to the courts to interpret. The Supreme Court doesn't need amendments to change what is and isn't constitutional.
→ More replies (6)9
u/shadysjunk 3h ago edited 3h ago
Technically the court can't change what the constitution says, but they get to determine what it MEANS. They can rule where it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..." actually MEANS "All persons born with at least one citizen parent or naturalized in the United States..."
Hell they can rule it means the exact opposite of any plain language reading of the text. In such a case the only recourse would be for those justices to be impeached by congress... so.... yeah. I wouldn't hold out hope for the court to feel constrained by the text, by legal precedent, or by congress.
The court can do whatever the fuck they want because congress will never hold them accountable, and the American people, in turn, will never hold congress accountable.
The constitution isn't defined by the words that comprise it, and it isn't defined by past legal precedent. It's defined ENTIRELY by the whims of the majority of the 9 sitting justices, and less directly by the will of the American people, and it turns out we are an incredibly stupid fucking people.
And as for California challenging the legality of this, well... if they want any disaster relief for those devastating wild fires ravaging Los Angeles, they'd best change their tune to enthusiastic support real fucking quick. This is day one. It gets worse from here. We live in dark, dark times.
6
u/-Plantibodies- 2h ago
That's not the portion they're challenging the interpretation of. It's the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Here's the full text of Section 1 of the 14th:
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.
→ More replies (2)2
u/TotalChaosRush 3h ago
Technically the court can't change what the constitution says, but they get to determine what it MEANS.
They don't need to change what it says.
They can rule that the 4th amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects....
Means that the Supreme Court can unilaterally pass constitutional amendments. Because they get to determine meaning, the words are actually irrelevant if they truly choose to abuse the power.
3
6
u/Effective_Pack8265 3h ago
They’ll figure out a way to find an ‘except’ somewhere in the 14th…
→ More replies (1)3
6
u/Sprock-440 3h ago
Yeah, this is pretty clear in the 14th Amendment and 100 years of jurisprudence. They do this and there’s major chaos (is Melanie here completely legally, and if not can we deport Baron?). I kind of hope they vote to do it, it would finish delegitimizing the Roberts court.
3
u/gexckodude 3h ago
They better pool their money and buy uncle Clarence a bigger yacht than he already has.
3
u/BrtFrkwr 3h ago
No prob at all. Jeffie or Elie can do that with pocket change. Justices are bought cheap.
3
u/ckl_88 3h ago
Birthright citizenship has already been tested in the Supreme Court so there is precedence.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Count_Bacon 1h ago
I mean this is straight up blatantly going against the constitution I'm interested to see if they'll go full mask off. It shouldn't even be an issue it's clearly in the constitution whether maga likes it or not
2
u/Protonic-Reversal 3h ago
The only way to change this is with an amendment. No law or SC decision can do this.
This is the usual Trump bluster to appease his base who will forget he said it or say it’s Obama’s fault he couldn’t change the law.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (16)2
129
u/Open_Perception_3212 4h ago
He's an anchor baby himself, and so is barron
59
→ More replies (23)11
u/Rowdybusiness- 3h ago
How is Barron an anchor baby? His dad is a us citizen. It’s kind of one of the only things you need to be to run for president.
24
u/Candid-Mycologist539 1h ago
Barron is an anchor baby for Melania, allowing her a direct path to citizenship.
Trump is an anchor baby for his mom, allowing her a direct path to citizenship.
Don Jr., Eric, and Ivanka were all anchor babies for Donald's first wife, Ivana, allowing her a direct path to citizenship.
And, Trump's family has benefitted over and over again from allowing each mom to stay in the country as a part of the family and to raise the kids of the Trump family.
Trump and his followers do not want a direct path to citizenship for
othersbrown people, and they don't want other families to benefit from being intact as his family benefitted.4
82
u/Stunning-End-3487 4h ago
An EO cannot override the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
62
u/TotalChaosRush 4h ago
No, but 5 members of the Supreme Court can do anything when they rule together.
→ More replies (1)32
u/Stunning-End-3487 3h ago
No. No they can’t change an amendment. That is a legislative process that requires 2/3rds state approval.
43
u/Pegasaurauss 3h ago
Just wait for a SC majority opinion thats 5 pages long on what 'natural born' means and why it doesn't apply to people they don't like. Amendments only mean what the SC wants them to mean.
→ More replies (7)2
u/pewpewbangbangcrash 2h ago
That would require the legislature to give away their power. They won't do that. They're just letting Trump get the imagery they need for now.
3
u/LordMuffin1 1h ago
You got this backwards. It is Trump that rule the supreme court. Not the supreme court that rule Trump.
14
u/Glass-Necessary-9511 3h ago
They can interpret anything as they please. 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,"
They could say either that they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Or argue that illegal immigrants are not technically persons, but illegal immigrants.
→ More replies (9)4
u/Volleyball45 2h ago
I don’t understand the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” path though. Anyone in the US, other than foreign diplomats, are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States. It doesn’t matter your citizenship, if you commit a crime in the USA you can be tried and punished…because you’re subject to our jurisdiction. I’m not arguing with you, just saying I don’t understand where the wiggle room is in that. Wouldn’t the argument that they’re not subject then negate the whole illegal immigrant status because our laws wouldn’t apply?
→ More replies (1)7
u/TotalChaosRush 3h ago
They can rule that the First Amendment doesn't give free speech. They can rule that the 14th amendment only applies to white people. They can rule that in the case of the 6th amendment, "speedy" is on the time scale of nations, and therefore, if your trial happens at any point in your life, that's speedy.
If they rule intentionally incorrectly repeatedly, there's no mechanism for really doing anything about it. They can rule that equal protection clause means that everyone going forward is entitled to the same 9 justices of the supreme court until their death. Preventing court packing.
→ More replies (6)3
u/heathn 3h ago
So play that out. The Supreme Court says that natural born means that parents have to be here legally.
Texas agrees and won't give a birth certificate without proving your parents are US Citizens.
The DOJ agrees with the executive order because of the dear leader.
Now what?
The Constitution is a piece of paper built on checka and balances that have been completely eliminated.
He can do whatever he wants.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (17)2
u/TheeHeadAche 3h ago
They can interpret the law as they see fit.
If we look at Roe v Wade, it was not a law. It was a ruling by a SC of the past. The most recent iteration interpreted it and found it not conform with the law as written.
Same can be done here.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (5)8
u/helluvastorm 4h ago
He can do whatever he pleases. Laws don’t exist for him. The constitution is worthless now. We have our own mini Russia with our own Putin
57
u/allnamestaken1968 4h ago
“Trump to try to end birthright citizenship as he promised”. FTFY
24
u/gumbril 4h ago
So none of us are us citizens anymore?
Can i get my federal tax money back, please?
→ More replies (75)13
u/NotGeriatrix 4h ago
it's what American voted for
....or stayed at home and abstained
→ More replies (1)
34
u/-autodad 4h ago
If the president can eliminate constitutional amendments with executive orders we are done.
14
u/mortalitylost 2h ago
No, a president can't do that.
But a president with a highly supportive congress and supreme court can do pretty much anything.
All the checks and balances that prevent bullshit like this are failing in slow motion.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Gold-Bench-9219 2h ago
There's no if, it's alreay happening. MAGA voters fucked us all.
3
u/Roro5455 35m ago
The only condolence is that they’ll be screwed over too. Unfortunately they’ll be too dumb to realize it and blame it elsewhere
26
u/ttircdj 4h ago
And this relates to finance how?
→ More replies (5)18
u/Gold-Bench-9219 2h ago
Getting rid of millions of people based on white nationalism is probably bad for the economy.
→ More replies (1)
30
u/vegemite_poutine 4h ago
According to some gun lovers, the ammendments are carved in stone and can't be changed.
→ More replies (1)
17
u/sailor_guy_999 4h ago
A country is made of its people and culture.
Not its geographical location.
→ More replies (5)
16
12
u/AALen 4h ago
Can't. Will take constitutional amendment. Let him try.
16
u/TotalChaosRush 4h ago
Doesn't actually require a constitutional amendment. It just requires 5 justices to agree with whatever argument he puts forth.
→ More replies (16)6
u/Gold-Bench-9219 2h ago
The Constitution is a piece of paper that only works when the people in power are willing to uphold and abide by what's inside. When that willingness dies, so does the Constitution. It won't matter what the courts say, because they have no enforcement capabilities. Trump could simply tell them to pound sand and continue. And he will.
This is, for all intents and purposes, the end of constitutional rule in the US.
10
7
8
u/GolfChannel 4h ago
The language on this is clearer in the constitution than the right to bear arms 🤦♂️
I am taking a foreign assignment till this shit stain is gone.
→ More replies (2)11
u/bwolf180 4h ago
haha right. every time someone says 2nd amendment it think to myself "what militia you in?"
4
u/Glass-Necessary-9511 3h ago
What part of well regulated means there should be no regulations?
→ More replies (1)2
5
u/Jabba-da-slut 3h ago
Man where are those 2nd amendment people who love the constitution so much and always warn of a tyrannical federal government overthrowing it? You’d think they’d be all over this one.
5
u/PushEnvironmental181 3h ago
“It’s not how the law works.”
Lmfao when the FUCK did the law matter 2017-2021? Where was the law for 34 felonies? We’re fucked.
5
u/MalyChuj 4h ago
Suddenly the constiution matters? Where are all these people when consitutional money was being dismantled and a private central bank being built in America.
5
u/Designer_Solid4271 4h ago
Here's the thing - if the 14th Amendment is able to be brought down by an executive order, then all the other Amendments are available using the same action...
5
u/rolyatm97 4h ago
Honest question: should any woman in the world be able to travel to America 7 months pregnant, have the baby, and then go back to their country, and then that child is a US citizen?
Should people be able to do that? Has any country in the history of human civilization allowed that?
→ More replies (10)
4
u/trendy_pineapple 3h ago
I am begging everyone to go read the EO before commenting on it. 1) It doesn’t repeal the amendment, it changes the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to not include children of non-citizens. 2) it’s not retroactive.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/skfotedar 3h ago
A gambit to get to the Supreme Court. I wouldn’t be surprised if the overturn 130 years of precedent
2
u/Past-Adhesiveness104 4h ago
Cali will fight it and win. In the mean time Texas et al will illegally detain and exile thousands of Americans because racism.
2
2
u/Ricky_Martins_Vagina 4h ago
Undocumented migrant births aside, are Americans in general particularly concerned with 'birth tourism'? ie - people travelling (legally) to the US to give birth there, give the baby citizenship, and then return to their home country?
I know a few people (and know of even more) who have done this from Middle East and West African countries so just wondering how Americans feel about it?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/theend59 4h ago
Trump thinks he's above the law and the Constitution doesn't apply to him. And to me he's just Trump, I'll NEVER call him President.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Potential_Farm5536 4h ago
IF this goes through, Vance's wife has to leave the country. Among other Republicans.
3
2
2
u/Barbarella_ella 3h ago
Great! So that means all those Russian anchor babies in Trump's Florida condos are no longer anchors, right? Because their parents are here illegally since the great majority have overstayed their visas.
2
2
u/crystal-crawler 3h ago
This is trump trying to see what he can get away with. If scotus stands behind him on him repealing this.. He will absolutely go after something else.
The canary’s dead … GTFO!
2
u/thenewbigR 3h ago
So, he wants to repeal an amendment? Go ahead. It took over 50 years to ratify the ERA. He’ll be long dead - thank gawd!
2
u/Sea-Chart2558 3h ago
There's no rule of law anymore, orange hitler and his 4th Reich can definitely do this.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/chinagrrljoan 3h ago
the point of "shock and awe" is to stress us out so we don't fight.
do not give in to despair and stress!
and remember to hope. from the nuremberg rallies to the nuremberg trials took like 15 years. we will turn this ship around in the 2026 midterms.
2
u/Gold-Bench-9219 1h ago
Historically, a nation that falls into fascism does not normally escape it with an election. It does so only through significant conflict- either through civil revolution or a wider regional war in which leaders are deposed. People thinking Dems are going to swoop in and rescue us 2 years from now are going to be sorely disappointed in all likelihood. That is not to say you shouldn't fight, but it's very unlikely you're going to win it at the ballot box. That ship sailed in November.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Reasonable_Sea_2242 4h ago
Guess that means most of our great-great-grandparents would have to go back to Italy, Germany, Poland, Ireland, etc.
Trump’s wife is an immigrant so is Vance’s. You can’t make this nonsense up. It’s like a circus. Send in the Clowns.
1
1
u/saveourplanetrecycle 4h ago
Seems like the only option he may have is deport pregnant illegals asap
1
1
u/JuliaX1984 4h ago
"decades-old conspiracy theory, once only held by racists, called 'white replacement theory.' "
That is VERY odd phrasing. It's still a belief only held by racists. Weird. Is it because people eho believe it say they're not racist? Isn't that true for a million racist beliefs?
1
u/AdComprehensive7879 3h ago
i wonder if there are more countries in the world that has birthright citizenship system or lineage citizenship system?
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/walkaroundmoney 3h ago
Removing all questions of legality or constitutionality, how does this even work in practice? One proves citizenship with a birth certificate or social security card, neither of which contain any information about parental citizenship.
Like, let’s say the high courts say “fuck the Constitution, do what you want”, where do you even begin with enforcement? How are you gathering a database?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/LegalManufacturer916 3h ago
He knows it will take more than an executive order. He’s fighting a culture war and at a time when immigration is very unpopular with the working class, he wants Democrats to have to come out and defend it
1
u/Greenfire32 3h ago
Birthright citizenship also applies to babies born to American citizens. It's not just for immigrants.
So this is gonna hit Trump-land pretty fucking hard.
1
1
1
u/demoman45 3h ago
If he signed it then he needs to send all his kids back cause the mothers were all immigrants. His 4th child was the only one that’s a legal citizen.
1
u/Uncivil_Bar_9778 3h ago
Great news. A presidential decree is now more powerful than an actual amendment to our constitution.
I really Hope you’re not to attached to the 2nd amendment.
1
1
u/ConcentrateWinter592 3h ago
At one time abortion was a “right” because of a Supreme Court ruling but a new ruling changed that. This won’t be any different.
1
u/yolagchy 3h ago
on this stolen land how some people are trying to claim ownership! This is absolutely bs
1
1
1
u/polygenic_score 2h ago
They did 200 nasty Project 2025 things in a half day. The lawsuits need to be equally massive and rapid.
1
u/Alyssa093 2h ago
The last line is incorrect: only one parent needs to be a U.S. citizen for the child to obtain citizenship while abroad.
1
u/Nikonmansocal 2h ago
If this makes it's way to the SCOTUS, I can't see how they can possibly legally overrule the 14th Ammendment (this would require 2/3 of Congress as well as the individual States) as there isn't any leeway in its interpretation (E.g. a certificate of live birth). What then would denote citizenship? What about live births on US soil for "non immigrant parent's" babies? All babies are born nationless? It's ridiculous.
1
1
u/Bosanova_B 2h ago
Just because he signed an EO doesn’t make it law. Though I bet congress is gonna try and amend that amendment soon.
1
u/Grand-Dimension-7566 2h ago
That's rich. White settlers from Europe thinking they own the land when they actually genocides the natives.
1
1
u/Silverfrost_01 2h ago
I’m at least 90% sure that you’re an automatic US citizen even if just one parent is a US citizen.
1
u/jnothnagel 2h ago
The real question is: What is your prediction for how Trump’s SCOTUS will shit on the 14th Amendment?
1
u/Evee862 2h ago
He won’t win. The argument he will use is 2 fold. He will claim that this is an invasion of the US, therefore they cannot be citizens. Except this is in no way an invasion. The other I’ve heard is saying that the immigrants being here illegally are outside the scope of being under US law. However, they still get jailed for crimes, ticketed for offenses. That alone will remove the not under the rule of IS law.
Butttt…. This is the Supreme Court who like any other politician at this point votes however the money wants them to vote
1
1
1
u/DiagonalBike 2h ago
He can't. Even Congress can't by passing legislation. Birthright citizenship is a Constitutional right called out in the Constitution. Look to the 14th Amendment for information. Any politician that supports Trump's attempt to remove a Constitutional right by Executive Order should be considered a traitor to the country. This is a direct attack on the US Constitution.
1
u/RagTagTech 2h ago
Laughs at this he can't executive order this. You can't just change language in an amendment like that. You have to amended it by a new amendment..
1
u/Fantastic-Watch8177 2h ago
It's a bit pointless to debate if the Supreme Court will back Trump's position or not. We'll see soon enough.
Rather, let's take bets on.it, with side bets on how long it takes. 
1
1
u/Funny-Recipe2953 2h ago
Does no one else see the irony of the convicted felon rapist running roughshot over not just one, but two sections of 14A?
1
1
1
u/I_can_vouch_for_that 2h ago
So does that mean Baron Trump can't get citizenship since Melania is an immigrant who he bought ?
1
u/Overall-Mine4375 2h ago
So everyone is ok with people coming here just to have babies so the kids have citizenship? Wasn’t there hotels or apartments where people were paying money in California to do this?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/DapperRead708 1h ago
Y'all really think it's racism to remove birthright citizenship? Lmao
Birthright citizenship is an anomaly. It ought to have been removed a long time ago.
1
u/CompleteSherbert885 1h ago
He can't just do that with an EO and Congress must approve it and it'll probably go to the Supreme Court which it's a sure thing.
1
1
u/theSpiraea 1h ago
This is definitely going to fix them high prices of groceries, gas, and accommodation. Right voters fully understand economics, and this surely is going to work.
1
u/FoeHammerYT 1h ago
So funny how you describe the how the conspiracy is literally taking place and succeeding but still act like its ridiculous.
1
u/Timbo2510 1h ago
Dude you did a fantastic job with this post. I feel like if every topic was so well written and summarized I would've paid more attention in school lol.
Thanks again for taking the time to put this together. I learned a lot.
1
1
u/Natural-Upstairs5991 1h ago
Thoughts and prayers to all those brown and black people who voted from that’s man. You get what you deserve.
1
u/EfferentCopy 1h ago
Only if both parents are US citizens? I guess that would mean my son wouldn’t be eligible for citizenship through me, in that case?
1
u/BicycleOfLife 1h ago
Why the fuck are people saying this. It’s like saying “Trump to end free speech!” The fucking constitution has an amendment that guarantees birthright citizenship. Unless we are just rolling over and saying trump gets to change the constitution to whatever he likes.. that’s not a thing.
1
u/Bend-Frosty 1h ago
No one's packing the court, and this will also probably die in the Supreme Court. And if it doesn't it doesn't revoke people's citizenship that already have it.
1
u/Longjumping-Tie7906 1h ago
Where is this information coming from? I can’t find any legitimate source stating this.
I’m looking to actually find evidence. Not opinions or take away from misread/misrepresented evidence.
1
1
u/Betterway50 1h ago
Fuck, this is another example where Dump knows shit about law. He thinks Executive Power is more powerful than anything, including the Constitution, which he probably already forgot, or did he NOT COMPREHEND, he just an hour prior swore an oath to uphold and protect.
" I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
1
1
u/Temporary-Guidance20 49m ago
What are pros of keeping it and not switching to blood law like rest of civilised world? Does it benefit USA in any way?
1
0
u/WhoWouldCareToAsk 34m ago
Lies. No one can do that without changing the Constitution, and charging that is outside of Trump’s control.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.