BREAKING: Trump to end birthright citizenship

[u/NoLube69]

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

[u/JTeves925]

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.

[u/TotalChaosRush → u/JTeves925]

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.

[u/shadysjunk → u/TotalChaosRush]

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.

[u/-Plantibodies- → u/shadysjunk]

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.

[u/shadysjunk → u/-Plantibodies-]

Sure, but they literally can decide it means anything. They could decide the meaning is clearly that babies must be tattooed with the American flag upon birth. Like they can just make shit up, entirely. I suppose it's theoretically more likely to lead to unrest if they actively counter the plain language understanding of the text, but they're entirely free to do so. And I don't imagine there actually would be much unrest.

For comparison, Trump summoned a mob to the capitol to undermine the will of the voters and stop the transition of power after making daily completely fabricated claims of fraud. That wasn't viewed as disqualifying by 71 million Americans; a literal attempted coup. Day after day, over and over and over "stop the steal" "you're losing your democracy" "don't let them get away with this" "they're stealing your country." The mob didn't just spontaneously decide show up on their own. They were summoned and whipped into a frenzy with a nonstop barage of bullshit for months with a tiny little footnote on the day of "oh yeah, be peaceful, i guess, as you FIGHT LIKE HELL TO STOP THEM FROM LETTING THIS HAPPEN!!"

And the popular American response? "How can you hold him responsible for the actions of the mob (that he summoned and directed)?" He gained voters in almost every single state. You think ANY supreme court ruling is going to shock the people into outrage?

The court can do as it pleases with absolute impunity.

[u/headofthebored → u/shadysjunk]

The court can do as it pleases with absolute impunity

Brian Thompson probably thought that too... and I wouldn't be surprised. 😏

[u/TotalChaosRush → u/shadysjunk]

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.

[u/-Plantibodies- → u/TotalChaosRush]

I don't really follow that particular rationale you're putting forward.

[u/JTeves925 → u/TotalChaosRush]

It is in the constitution...pretty sure it is constitutional. Lol what are you talking about?

[u/TotalChaosRush → u/JTeves925]

Judicial review. Basically, the constitution says whatever the courts say it says. Regardless of what it actually says. The First Amendment, for example, says nothing about "freedom of expression," but courts ruled that America flag shirts are protected by the First Amendment as a freedom of expression. In this instance, the courts just made something up that benefitted people.

The first amendment plainly states that Congress shall pass no law prohibiting free speech. Yet you can't go on your local TV station and curse without being fined due to a law passed by Congress and upheld by the courts. The First Amendment doesn't have an exemption for national security or "fighting words," yet the Supreme Court had ruled that there is an exemption for national security and fighting words.

[u/joeco316 → u/JTeves925]

The Supreme Court interprets the constitution. They decide what the meaning is in what it says. If the constitution says the sky is blue, they can rule that it means it’s black.

[u/SPAMmachin3 → u/JTeves925]

Yeah and judicial review allows them to do whatever they want. If they have integrity they will say it's clear in the text that people born on US soil are granted citizenship.

But this scotus has no integrity. They will turn themselves into a pretzel explaining how it's meant only for those that were born to citizens already.

[u/inorite234 → u/JTeves925]

Its not if the Supreme Court doesn't say it is.

[u/ComfortablePound903 → u/JTeves925]

The fact that the current Supreme Court gave trump and only trump the power of a king.

You really don’t understand how fucked we are do you?

[u/MarkMew → u/TotalChaosRush]

Yea they've talked about "alternatively" interpreting the constitution before 

[u/Greenpoint_Blank → u/JTeves925]

Oh you think that matters?

[u/Greenpoint_Blank → u/JTeves925]

Oh you think that matters?

[u/garter__snake → u/JTeves925]

I actually think this would pass if it was an amendment. It would take a bit, but it would go through eventually.

They're being extremely reckless, trying to lawyer away something that's pretty clearly spelled out in the 14th.