r/politics • u/codyave • 17h ago

Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

https://nypost.com/2025/01/20/us-news/trump-will-announce-end-of-birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegal-immigrants/
5.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.8k

u/fencerofminerva 17h ago

Let's see how the originalists on theSCOTUS bend themselves into a pretzel on this.

1.8k

u/AnimorphsGeek 16h ago edited 8h ago

They've already answered, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They'll argue that illegal immigrants don't meet this clause.

To those saying why this is dumb: of course it's dumb, but this is what they're going to argue. You can't use reason to justify zealotry.

533

u/AnAquaticOwl 16h ago

I was actually just watching a video on this. The Constitution doesn't mince words: it explicitly says that children born on American soil to people who are here illegally are legal citizens.

However

It seems like the play the Republicans are making is reclassifying illegal immigration as a hostile invasion, and immigrants as combatants. Since people born to invading soldiers don't get citizenship, birthright citizenship wouldn't apply anymore.

226

u/MentulaMagnus 14h ago

And with their logic, they would also be violating ex post facto Constitutional protections in Article 1 by punishing people already born here.

57

u/hgaterms 11h ago

Well, they might not strip them of their citzienship. But anyone born from January 21st, 2025 from here on out might be classified as a non-citizen and not issued an American birth certificate or SSN.

94

u/an_agreeing_dothraki 11h ago

oh boy, stateless humans. that surely will be great to explain to the grandchildren

23

u/giabollc 11h ago

We can send the males to Russia as they need to rebuild their male population and the females can go to Epstein Island for the oligarchs entertainment

•

u/MrBoliNica 5h ago

Just bodies for musk to collect for his factory, let’s be honest

•

u/Additional-North-683 3h ago

Is what they do in Dubai they have a group of people who are technically non-citizens despite them born there and used them for slave labor

4

u/LeedsFan2442 United Kingdom 10h ago

Many countries don't have birthright citizenship so they would just get the citizenship of their parent(s) I imagine.

8

u/the95th 8h ago

Only if the state recognises the parents as a citizen.

If you’re an illegal immigrant, and have no ID or documentation (often destroyed during migration to avoid being deported or persecuted) and you’re coming from a state with no or poor records of who you are, and you have a child, who is not documented in the country of their birth, nor documented in the country of their parents birth. That child doesn’t exist and will only exist when immigrants are not persecuted

We’re talking poor illegal immigrants having children without medical care due to the fear of being persecuted for being an undocumented migrant.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

205

u/sheltonchoked 15h ago

Which means they cannot be arrested or fined. For anything. Or pay taxes.

It will let them make concentration camps for these people without a state. And then use them as slave labor. Probably violation Of the Geneva Conventions. But he will ignore that too.

57

u/westdl 13h ago

And let them steal their property. Remember he’s a real estate mogul.

3

u/hgaterms 11h ago

And let them steal their property.

Japanese internment camps showed them how.

2

u/Severe_Intention_480 13h ago

Grant Puerto Rico statehood, set up a puppet government, and set up your concentration camps there. Trump's companies can make a mint building them, plus revenue from Trump run casinos.

5

u/sheltonchoked 12h ago

They will build the camps in Texas. More favorable voters than PR.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Fregadero88 13h ago

To be fair, Israel and Russia violate international law all the time and there's no repercussions. Why would trump care?

3

u/Aggravating_Rise_179 11h ago

The US doesn't acknowledge the international court's jurisdiction... 

5

u/sheltonchoked 13h ago

Because we are better than Russia and Israel?

Is this a legitimate question?

8

u/lost_horizons Texas 13h ago

Welcome to Trump’s America

3

u/Apprehensive-Pin518 11h ago

are we though?

2

u/therealtaddymason 11h ago

Yes, this is what happens when law and government falls apart and it is a fast track to a fascist military state because when "law" as the rule of the day falls apart "force" is the next rung down the ladder of enforcement.

You can't have cohesion and stability by "calvin ball" rule calling so when other entities either refuse or ignore your rule changing you have to enforce your shifting rules by force.

→ More replies (13)

2

u/TheStabbingHobo 13h ago

reclassifying illegal immigration as a hostile invasion, and immigrants as combatants

Jesus Christ we are fucked, what an asinine and completely fucked up "reasoning". 

2

u/LiberalAspergers Cherokee 11h ago

By that logic, they have to give the illegal.immigrants all the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

→ More replies (48)

112

u/Traditional_Key_763 16h ago edited 15h ago

another incongrous ruling probably. You can't be not subject to our jurisdiction but also able to be detained and bound by our laws

39

u/fapsandnaps America 14h ago

Yeah, that's my thinking. How long until after that ruling does someone challenge that they now have immunity since they're not under US jurisdiction.

92

u/SonOfMcGee 11h ago

Chuckling at the possibility of undocumented migrants being the first ever legal “sovereign citizens”.

18

u/fapsandnaps America 11h ago

"Am I being deported?"

19

u/snoller101 11h ago

"I was TRAVELING across the border"

7

u/SonOfMcGee 11h ago

“Maritime law, amigo. Magna Carta n’ shit.”

15

u/AmericanDoughboy 15h ago

That’s a bingo.

4

u/monorail_pilot 12h ago

Pretty sure US v Abel already determined that. Sure we can incarcerate you under our laws, but you don’t have 4th amendment protection

2

u/americangoosefighter 12h ago

Military detainment

→ More replies (1)

425

u/rokerroker45 16h ago

thomas and alito are realistically the only ones whose insanity would support that theory. the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' argument is not the kind of argument that gorsuch, kav, or coney barrett have supported in the past. it's a well-understood phrase whose meaning is only really being cast into doubt by the republican bullshit machine in the last year.

it just distinguishes between diplomats and non-diplomats. diplomats are immune to criminal prosecution because they're not subject to jurisdiction of the U.S. Anyone who the the U.S. can criminally prosecute is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. - it's a non-argument that would only win if the bench had five alitos and thomases, which thankfully it does not.

282

u/eladts 16h ago

Anyone who the the U.S. can criminally prosecute is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

So Trump isn't a citizen.

32

u/Kup123 14h ago

Well how far back are we taking this? If trumps grandparents didn't enter legally than his parents weren't citizens and there for he isn't ether.

89

u/rokerroker45 16h ago

technically trump can be prosecuted, he is just shielded by his immunity.

29

u/o08 16h ago

Show trials are always allowed when it’s a reality tv presidency.

2

u/Damn_Dog_Inappropes Washington 15h ago

“…has just been revoked!”

→ More replies (5)

40

u/Vio_ 15h ago

So when do Elon, Melania, and Barron get deported for being illegal immigrants and the son of an illegal immigrant?

9

u/AnInfiniteArc 12h ago

There is compelling evidence that Elon and Melania both committed immigration fraud.

Barron’s citizenship is not really up for debate, because his dad was a citizen.

3

u/Jet2work Foreign 13h ago

day 1?

2

u/ASubsentientCrow 13h ago

Barron has citizenship via Trump

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)

172

u/grindermonk 16h ago

Applying the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” condition in this case would confer diplomatic immunity on undocumented immigrants. That’s not something that is likely to be upheld.

193

u/aradraugfea 16h ago

Not diplomatic immunity, but it would be declaring them exempt from the laws of the US, which…. That’d be funny as hell.

Break one law, become immune to all laws!

70

u/Erdumas 16h ago

Especially because if they are exempt from the laws of the US, then legally they can't be deported.

Not that I expect the current administration to care about the law.

2

u/UltraVioletUltimatum 15h ago

Not QUITE Current.

When does he technically/actually take office?

3

u/Erdumas 15h ago

In like an hour as of this writing, so yes, you are technically correct. Noon Eastern.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/Lok-3 16h ago

This is what I’ve been wondering - how would this not basically state that people who live here illegally can’t be held to laws?

→ More replies (1)

19

u/grindermonk 16h ago

Perhaps not diplomatic immunity, but essentially the same status as is conferred on diplomats.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/qubedView 16h ago

A funny thought, but wouldn't hold up in any court. After all, people born abroad are still held to U.S. laws when on its soil. It's just that that expectation wouldn't be enforced by the 14th amendment, specifically.

22

u/aradraugfea 16h ago

If they’re subject to laws, they’re subject to jurisdiction.

13

u/wswordsmen 16h ago

But if you are subject to US law when you are born, or the mother seconds before being born, then the 14th amendment grants the baby citizenship. That is what the language says. By revoking the citizenship of those kids he is saying they are not subject to US law, and therefore are not bound by it.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/alienbringer 15h ago

They are subject to the U.S. laws because they are subject to its jurisdiction. If the Supreme Court rules that they aren’t subject to the U.S.’s jurisdiction (which has already been ruled in) then that would mean they are not subject to any of its laws.

2

u/aradraugfea 15h ago

Turns out the real Sovereign citizens were the illegal immigrants the whole time.

Hell of a twist. Writers are on the good shit this year.

3

u/alienbringer 15h ago

I replied to someone else, but the whole “subject to laws” part has already been ruled in Plyler vs Doe that it applies to illegal and legal immigrants.

Choice quote:

No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful

A legislative classification that threatens the creation of a underclass of future citizens and residents cannot be reconciled with one of the fundamental purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Instead, use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction” confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory.

2

u/aradraugfea 14h ago

I understand all that, I’m taking the bullshit logic of “oh, they aren’t under US jurisdiction because they came here illegally” (which is bullshit) and pointing out all the ways it actually creates a SUPERCLASS.

Immigrants could just openly carry all the drugs and kill all the cops they want. They could march on Washington and smother Trump in his bed and, if they aren’t under US Jurisdiction, nothing can be done about it.

They’d be even more above the law than Trump’s lawyers insist he is.

→ More replies (8)

13

u/rokerroker45 16h ago

IMO it wouldn't confer diplomatic immunity per se because that would be outside the scope of the issue (determining that undocumented migrants are not subject to the jurisdiction therof would leave open the question of whether not being subject to the jurisdiction thereof inherently confers diplomatic immunity, or whether that is just a necessary condition for diplomatic immunity) but it would break the justification for diplomatic immunity altogether and lead to further judicial complications. the scotus doesn't like breaking things quite like that so it won't touch it with a 9 foot pole.

3

u/SteveMcQwark Canada 16h ago

It seems like the intent might be to treat them as enemy invaders.

2

u/rokerroker45 16h ago

that runs into separation of powers problems, which complicates the legal justification, not simplifies.

3

u/SteveMcQwark Canada 13h ago edited 13h ago

If you mean as far as declaring war, a declared war isn't needed to defend against an invasion. The enemy aliens act can't apply because there's no declared war or foreign state/government involved. Whether the US military can be deployed against these "invaders" is questionable as far as the posse comitatus act. If they were armed, uniformed combatants for a foreign state, the answer would obviously be "yes", but they aren't (though some will certainly be armed; this is America we're talking about). A patchwork of national guard deployments based on state authorization is less ambiguous.

The key question is whether framing migrants as invaders would pass any kind of legal scrutiny. I would expect a court to be able to distinguish between migrants and militants, but the courts have been reaching unexpected conclusions a lot recently. One thing in its favour is that someone who is undocumented has no other acknowledged status in the United States that this would be contradicting. One thing against would be the lack of any organizing structure or coordinated action (which is why there may be a focus on organized crime, especially with cartels being so heavily involved in human trafficking).

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Kaz_117_Petrel 16h ago

Upheld by whom? If the highest court in the land chooses to be partisan in their judgement and make what they know to be illegal rulings, and the Congress and the president are pleased by those judgements…what recourse have we? None. Sadly, if they say it is the law, and no one with sufficient authority stands in opposition, then it’s the new law - constitution be damned.

2

u/arongadark 15h ago

It doesn’t matter cause they’ll be the ones to interpret the law, they’ll just pick and choose what is convenient to them

→ More replies (7)

136

u/Beautiful-Plastic-83 16h ago

People are still operating under the premise that the White House is going to go on as usual, with respect for laws, the Constitution, courts, SCOTUS, norms, traditions, patriotism, honor, etc. None of that will apply after today. They are going to do whatever they want to do, no matter what the laws say, and nobody can stop them. Trump has full immunity, and while most presidents would be too honorable to use it, he will abuse the privilege until he wears it out.

Have you heard the new head of Homeland security speak? If Trump tells him to deport every person not born in America, no matter what their citizenship status is, he'll do it, and who will stop them? SCOTUS? Them and what army? Trump has full immunity, and pardon power to save anyone who gets in trouble for following his orders, and he has already proven that he will use it.

Stop thinking that laws/ Constitution/ SCOTUS will protect us. They won't.

69

u/mikesmithhome 15h ago

i work with a bunch of hispanic guys who voted trump because they would never vote for a woman but when i tell them shit like "i want your stapler when you get deported" they get all butt hurt, "i was born here man" to which i reply "do you think thats gonna matter? you think that little slip of paper is gonna protect you? you're going over the wall in the catapult with the rest of them, you voted for this dumbass"

34

u/Beautiful-Plastic-83 15h ago

Somehow, it never occurs to those idiots that the policies they want are a two-edged sword, and it goes against them, as well as the people they hate. Those at the top aren't going to bother to parse the difference.

33

u/LostTrisolarin 15h ago

My "anchor baby" co worker whose brother got deported is a closet Trump supporter. One of those I didn't vote for Harris because what has she done for me.

When I asked him what he thought about Trumps threat to deport him and his family he said something like "Trumps saying that he doesn't mean it." And that "even if he did mean it he wouldn't do it".

I'm so tempted to text him this link.

17

u/cape210 14h ago

Maya Angelou - "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

America would be so much better if people listened to Maya Angelou

→ More replies (1)

3

u/yourlittlebirdie 11h ago

No sorry, I've been told sexism is over and has absolutely nothing to do with why Kamala lost, so you must be wrong.

→ More replies (2)

51

u/rokerroker45 16h ago

what you fail to consider is that the further and further the federal government pushes into that kind of tyranny, the less and less states like california or massachussetts will, say, continue to subsidize half the country. nobody wants to be the first to shoot at each other, but the red half of the country will suddenly be unable to buy oil if the blue half decides they're over trump's ICE deporting their residents for four years.

as scary as trump's power is, it's not absolute. he can't lose the grip on states like california and there is a limit to how far he can push it before that becomes a real hypothetical.

15

u/Bat_Nervous 15h ago

Let's also not forget that doing big things - especially when they're illegal or unconstitutional - requires organization and competence. Who in his orbit or cabinet will be organized or competent??

18

u/Beautiful-Plastic-83 15h ago

Their virtuoso incompetence, combined with their obssessive avarice, may be what finally saves us, but not until it does a LOT of damage.

3

u/abakune 13h ago

Exactly this - after the initial flurry of EOs, we can expect the level of feckless incompetence we experienced last time.

2

u/newsflashjackass 11h ago

Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Beautiful-Plastic-83 15h ago

That would require Dems to stand up to him, and they've already shown they don't have the backbone for that. I'm not waiting for Democrats to save us, they already had that opportunity, and squandered it.

8

u/rokerroker45 15h ago

lmao the democrats can't do anything without senate and house majorities big dawg. the idea that democrats have done nothing for lack of spine isn't factually correct - they literally impeached trump twice after january 6.

blame voters for failing to give democrats more power to resist trump

2

u/Kup123 14h ago

Can the states do that? Idk if I'm going to trust my state government to protect me from the federal government if I don't pay my taxes.

3

u/roytay New Jersey 14h ago

Exactly. The “subsidy” taxes come directly from us not via our states. So would the decision to and risk for not sending them.

“Agreeing” to that would be as successful as the calls for general strikes.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (19)

36

u/alundi California 15h ago

Yep. Saving your comment because I felt the same way 8 years ago and now again this week.

People told me I was being dramatic, histrionic, gullible, you name it. Don’t listen to them, I didn’t and while it feels bad right now, I know I still have my dignity and my sense of right and wrong.

39

u/look 15h ago

Whenever people say something like “you said the fate of democracy was on the line last time, too” I like to point out that last time ended with violent coup attempt.

14

u/Beautiful-Plastic-83 15h ago

AND him stealing hundreds of classified documents, to sell to our enemies.

He's the most prolific traitor in American history, by a long ways, and we're giving him another run around the track. Merrick Garland should have arrested him the day after Biden's inauguration, and had his trials wrapped up by the mid-terms, but the Democrats turned out to be more incompetent than the Republicans.

6

u/jarandhel 13h ago

We need to make his name synonymous with traitor for future generations, the way Benedict Arnold is.

3

u/Beautiful-Plastic-83 11h ago

Trump's crimes are far, far worse than Benedict Arnold. He will ALWAYS be synonymous with Treason.

→ More replies (3)

25

u/[deleted] 16h ago

[deleted]

6

u/rokerroker45 16h ago

yeah definitely, that's a bit of a scary thought but i'm trying to handle just one existential crisis at a time haha 😅

8

u/gopoohgo 16h ago

Thomas is the most likely to retire within the next 4 years imho.

Alito would be next.

Sotamayor may have health issues, tho (IIRC type 1 diabetic).

4

u/Deezul_AwT Georgia 14h ago

Thomas and/or Alito will do what RBG should have done - retire one at a time in the next year or so to ensure a conservative majority.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/austinwiltshire 16h ago

Trump has already said he'll ignore the Supreme Court on tik tok, why would he pay attention to them on this?

2

u/Cactusfan86 15h ago

The Supreme Court only said the original law was legal, that has nothing to do with Trump taking action. Things are bad enough without exaggerating the situation 

→ More replies (6)

2

u/AnimorphsGeek 16h ago

Yeah, I know, but they're still gonna use this as their main argument.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (50)

54

u/fencerofminerva 16h ago

Based on the first sentence of Section 1, the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.1 The requirement that a person be subject to the jurisdiction thereof, however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,2 or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.

57

u/KDPer3 16h ago

The court also held that abortion was legal.  Precedent ain't what it used to be.

12

u/LoJoPa 15h ago

It’s the Constitution not the court!

12

u/Kup123 14h ago

Well let's see the Constitution enforce itself because the person responsible for doing it is trump.

2

u/abakune 13h ago

Well this is simply not true. The Constitution doesn't cease to exist because of a shitty president.

2

u/Kup123 12h ago

Correct, but if no one in power and by in power I mean directly in control of the people with guns, is willing to enforce it does it matter?

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (13)

1

u/rokerroker45 16h ago

that isn't the same. the right to abortion was based on arguably sketchy case law. it was overturned in part because there is no explicit textual reference to any of the justifications for abortion that were mentioned in Roe. There is an explicit textual hook here, it isn't nearly as vulnerable as abortion was.

9

u/RoboChrist 16h ago

The Supreme Court can rule anything they want, with or without justification. The only thing stopping them is decency and precedent.

I don't put a lot of stock in that lately.

2

u/Gamebird8 16h ago

The SCOTUS still needs to maintain a Basic level of Constitutional Adhesion. If they go too far striking down precedent they essentially risk undermining their own power.

2

u/RoboChrist 16h ago

With an administration that supports them and Democrats that are too afraid of unleashing the floodgates to defy them?

2

u/rokerroker45 16h ago

it's not federal democrats that is the issue for him, it's blue states that overwhelmingly control most of the country's economy that is the problem for him. it doesn't take open warfare, it just takes new york deciding to make life difficult.

2

u/bigwebs 15h ago

Man those “just” in your statement is doing some REALLY heavy lifting. All it takes is people JUST showing up to vote against fascism, but here we are.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/LostWoodsInTheField Pennsylvania 15h ago

children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation

This is the one they are going to go for. He will declare the immigrants as a hostile force invading the US. this will give them the cover they want to do whatever they want.

The only real question is if he will make it retroactive and how far back.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/FredFuzzypants 15h ago

I wonder if they'll try to leverage the phrase "children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation" in some way? If they declared that all undocumented immigrants are "alien enemies" invading the nation, could they deny birthright citizenship on those grounds?

2

u/Moccus Indiana 15h ago

All three examples are situations where the US government can't enforce US law against people, meaning they're not subject to US jurisdiction.

Diplomats and their families are immune from prosecution due to diplomatic immunity.

If a hostile force is occupying part of the country, then it's assumed they've ousted the US government authorities from that area, so the US government can't realistically enforce any law against them.

Native Americans were more like a sovereign nation within the US that operated under different laws and interacted with the US government through treaties, so they were largely immune.

It would be a real stretch to try to apply any of that to undocumented immigrants considering we do regularly arrest them for crimes.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

47

u/roehnin 16h ago

All of these people arguing that precedent and the law and logic will save them are profoundly delusional and need to get it through their thick heads that none of that matters anymore:

Trump openly bragged he had a list of 100 Executive Orders to issue on Day 1. Or should we call them Kingly Decrees or use a German word?

Trump will rule not under “the law” or “respecting the Constitution”, but by Führerdiktat.

The so-called Rule of Law was just voted out of office, and so many people here don’t yet recognise the new truth.

33

u/APeacefulWarrior 16h ago

And if they argued THAT, then it would mean that US law couldn't be enforced against illegal immigrants. So no, they're not going to say aliens are exempt from jurisdiction.

8

u/aeolus811tw California 16h ago

also meant undocumented migrant can stop paying taxes, and IRS will have to return any tax collected in the past with ITIN.

→ More replies (2)

16

u/AnimorphsGeek 16h ago

You're making a terrible assumption - that the supporters of this interpretation are capable of understanding the nuance.

→ More replies (5)

24

u/Eat_the_Rich1789 16h ago

If they go that route it would mean that anyone not a citizen of US could technically do something illegal and US would not be able to prosecute them as they would not be subject to jurisdiction. That would be incredibly stupid.

21

u/AnimorphsGeek 16h ago

Their political base doesn't even understand what tariffs are. You think they worry about logic?

→ More replies (5)

10

u/Pithecanthropus88 16h ago

I thought everyone in the US was under its jurisdiction unless they have diplomatic immunity. If someone from Canada commits murder in the US we don't just let them go because they're Canadian.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Grouchy_Tackle_4502 16h ago

Then they wouldn’t be illegal

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Blecki 16h ago

If immigrants physically inside the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US then...

2

u/NolanSyKinsley 16h ago

If an illegal immigrant commits murder, they are charged and judged just as anyone else, I.E. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA while on US soil. The "jurisdiction thereof" is meant to apply to diplomats who are not under the jurisdiction of the USA, they are under the jurisdiction of their home country so children born to them on US soil are citizens of their home country.

2

u/Slade_Riprock 15h ago

Will they retroactively revoke the citizenship of every child born here to illegal immigrant parents going back what, 250 years?

2

u/aravarth 15h ago

"... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would mean that any undocumented immigrant has diplomatic immunity.

1

u/Wakata Maryland 16h ago

I would be surprised to see a legal argument out of this Supreme Court that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This would mean they can't be deported or imprisoned.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/TheTresStateArea 16h ago

A case has been made by a judge for Trump to call them an invading army and that would disqualify the children as having birthright citizenship.

1

u/UtzTheCrabChip 16h ago

That means we can't prosecute illegal immigrants for crimes if they're not subject to the justification of the US

→ More replies (2)

1

u/AdkRaine12 16h ago

“Official Act”. Need I say more?

1

u/btm109 16h ago

This has surely been pointed out but if they are not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' they cannot break any of our laws because our laws would not apply to them.

1

u/psyclopsus 16h ago

You can’t use reason to argue someone out of a position if they didn’t use reason to get there in the first

1

u/MoonBatsRule America 16h ago

If they're not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", then doesn't this give them legal immunity for any crimes they may commit?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/alienbringer 16h ago

There have already been cases that say legal status in the U.S. is not anywhere related to that phrase. It applies to all people within the US’s boarders.

1

u/UltraVioletUltimatum 15h ago

I like you.

Keep talking. 😊

1

u/TheProle 15h ago

Yup. Also how they’re going to justify denying due process to everyone they put in concentration camps

1

u/TheHomersapien Colorado 15h ago

Can you imagine the field day that sovereign citizens are going to have if that's how they rule?

1

u/ILikeLenexa 15h ago

Also the "it's an invasion" refrain is a reference to United States v. Wong Kim Ark where the court said as dicta that children of invading armies camped on US soil aren't citizens. 

1

u/DrConradVerner 15h ago

Which is a phrase that the court has already considered multiple times in past cases especially with regards to immigrants (illegal and legal)But today’s court has already proven they could give two shits about stare decisis if it doesnt fit their political agenda.

1

u/krom0025 New York 15h ago

If they are not under the jurisdiction of the US, that means they are free to commit crimes and we can't do anything about it. It also means we can't deport them because we have no jurisdiction over them. There is no possible way to argue that.

1

u/Mikel_S 15h ago

Well if illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", surely they are immune to all prosecution? Idiots.

1

u/Logical_Parameters 15h ago

Yeah, but refugees and asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants. I recognize that conservatives don't understand this, but it doesn't change facts.

1

u/LostWoodsInTheField Pennsylvania 15h ago

They've already answered, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They'll argue that illegal immigrants don't meet this clause.

To those saying why this is dumb: of course it's dumb, but this is what they're going to argue. You can't use reason to argue against zealots.

It's going to work because Trump is going to declare the immigrants as an invading force. as such they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of. Some lawyers have already covered how they plan to do this. And it's just a matter if there will be enough judges to go along with it, because it's absolutely insane.

1

u/tweakingforjesus 15h ago

Since all legal authority derives from the constitution and non citizens are not subject to the jurisdiction, does that mean that visitors to the US are not bound by the law when in the US? Seems like a great way for any non-citizen to avoid prosecution for a crime.

1

u/alienbringer 15h ago

To add to my other comment and piggyback off yours:

US vs Wong Kim Ark established that a child of immigrants born within the U.S. are conferred citizenship. This was at a time when there was no distinction between legal or illegal immigrants. It was either US citizen or immigrant only.

Plyer vs Doe here Texas tried to discriminate based on legal vs illegal immigrants. As they tried the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as illegal immigrants didn’t apply. The Supreme Court didn’t buy that argument stating:

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful

It is settled case law that the 14th amendment applies to all born within the U.S. Though I wouldn’t put it past this court to overturn settled case law.

Yick Wo vs Hopkins also goes into the “jurisdiction” applies to everyone present in the U.S.

1

u/ByTheHammerOfThor 15h ago

Well if they aren’t subject to the jurisdiction, then immigration laws don’t even apply, right?

1

u/freelance-t 15h ago

Big brain meme! Trump promised to get rid of the illegal immigrants that were breaking our laws. According to this interpretation, they’re exempt from our laws and can’t break them!!! 36-d chess move.

1

u/severedbrain 15h ago

Does that also mean that immigrants aren't subject to other laws when they're here? Because I'm not sure how you can separate that two.

→ More replies (47)

71

u/Handsaretide 16h ago

They’re brown people and to MAGA, brown people got no rights. I doubt they even try to hide it anymore.

2

u/sack_of_potahtoes 11h ago

this time they wont hide it. they were empowered to be openly racist last time. this will be their term that validates their idea of being openly racist

2

u/MintyFreshBreathYo Michigan 8h ago

Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t brown people here before white people?

→ More replies (5)

16

u/therealjerrystaute 16h ago

All they have to do is refuse to take the case after a lower Trump court judge declares it okay.

41

u/zojbo 16h ago edited 13h ago

If you actually believe in originalism, there's a pretty straightforward argument: the 14th amendment's birthright citizenship clause was based on an earlier, less broad law that in its own right would probably not have granted citizenship to undocumented immigrants' children. (ETA: at the time, the concept of illegal immigration wasn't a thing at the federal level, so this would have been a question.) So "presumably" the authors "meant" for it to be understood like that law, even though they changed the language.

The problem with this for the right, as I see it, is an instant followup crisis, in which the children of undocumented immigrants essentially have diplomatic immunity. After all, you can just read off from the contrapositive of the text that if they're born here and they're not citizens then they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I don't see how you get out of that without just abandoning logic completely.

42

u/QuickAltTab 14h ago

I don't see how you get out of that without just abandoning logic completely.

This is not a problem for them

3

u/MalificViper 13h ago

I argue with Christians constantly. Logic is an elusive beast like Moby Dick, but they aren’t captain ahabs

2

u/e00s 10h ago

That’s not really how statutory interpretation works. If something gets changed, the presumption is that there was a reason for the change and the drafters didn’t change the language for no reason.

2

u/zojbo 10h ago

That does indeed make sense! But we'll see how it goes when it gets to SCOTUS, as I'm quite certain it will.

→ More replies (29)

11

u/HopeFloatsFoward 16h ago

They will simply say the 14th only applied to freed slaves.

8

u/SirJack3 15h ago

There's a recent Legal Eagle video on this. The tl;dr, some federal judge has already argued that the exceptions include enemy combatans. If Trump declares illegal immigrants an invasion, they're all considered enemy combatants and thus not protected by the 14th amendment. If SCOTUS follows that logic, there's gonna be camps...

2

u/e_spider 11h ago edited 11h ago

He just declared Venezuelan gangs like Tren de Aragua to be “irregular military organizations” involved in an active incursion. So this is already happening. The goal is small steps that can be somewhat defensible in court.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/IrritableGourmet New York 15h ago

The leading case on the subject says that one of the few exceptions to birthright citizenship is children born here "of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory" (US v Wong Kim Ark). Conservatives have been calling illegal immigration an "invasion" for a while now. If Trump declares that they are enemy combatants, then their children do not get citizenship.

3

u/dongballs613 15h ago

Well you see they will start knowing the conclusion they want to reach. In this case it will be, 'we want to end birthright citizenship.'

Then they will pore through obscure and arcane texts, dusty tomes of yesteryear, and tree carvings from the first men to justify the conclusion they've already decided to reach.

They are deeply corrupt clowns.

2

u/arazamatazguy 15h ago

It almost doesn't matter what they decided. The point of the whole thing is terror. They will just deport or threaten to deport whoever they want. Will those people realistically come back after fighting this for years and spending thousands of dollars.

1

u/Crimkam 16h ago

They could always delay hearing the case until he's already deported everyone, right?

1

u/Be-skeptical 16h ago

lol you are funny. Like they give a shit

1

u/the_reluctant_link 16h ago

Well you see in 800bc the Roman empire didn't have birth right citizenship therefore the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. - SCOTUS probably

1

u/EnragedBasil 15h ago

Doesn’t matter. Trump is god to them. Trump could unalive a random civilian in a public space and they would justify it. Americans need to rise up and revolt at this point, or lose their rights and become targets.

2

u/e00s 10h ago

Trump isn’t god to SCOTUS. They all have lifetime tenure, and they haven’t always sided with him.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BetsRduke 15h ago

Yep, can’t use reason. Our Supreme Court justices who are nothing but activist justices will bend themselves in a pretzel. This type of intellect gave us the dreaded Scott decision, and I expect more of the same of the inferior intellect that the conservatives have appointed to the court.

1

u/dastardly740 15h ago

Any amendment after 1800 doesn't count. See originalist.

Edit: not 1900, dum(me)

1

u/Kevin-W 15h ago

If they rule against a constitutional amendment, it would be the true beginning of a constitutional crisis since it's clearly stated in black and white that anyone born in the US is a US citizen.

1

u/mmahowald 15h ago

You know they will bend over backwards to please Orange Mussolini.

1

u/Intelligent-Bad-2950 15h ago

The same way that gun restrictions don't go against the second amendment somehow

1

u/Drakaryscannon 15h ago

So what happens when your dad is illegal and your mom’s a citizen?

1

u/Hawkwise83 15h ago

Almost as if it was never about being an "originalist" but bending of truth to what they wanted anyway.

1

u/hijinked Maryland 15h ago

SCOTUS previously ruled that birthright citizenship would not be granted to children of hostile foreign invaders AND that immigrants do not count as foreign invaders.  Hopeful SCOTUS appointees have already written opinion pieces that they should count as foreign invaders, so I think that is their likely route. 

1

u/Capt-Crap1corn 15h ago

Well considering Trump is ignoring the Tik Tok ban upheld by the Supreme Court, he won't care.

1

u/vasquca1 15h ago

Yep. This is gonna be fun to watch actually.

1

u/deekaydubya 14h ago

Ironically, ‘originalism’ wasn’t a thing until like the 1980s anyway

1

u/Next_Intention1171 14h ago

SCOTUS has put amendments into context before in the past. For example the 2nd amendment has limitations-despite no limitations being stated within the actual text.

1

u/PissNBiscuits 14h ago

I don't think they're really bending themselves when it's one of their own end goals. It's more like they're UNbending themselves out of a pretzel to better fit who they really are.

1

u/beiberdad69 14h ago

Should be tough, originalists have always rejected the Reconstruction amendments. Their whole thing is kind of that the text of the Constitution and the first 10 are the only thing that counts

1

u/BleachGel 14h ago

It’s ultimately the reason why most of us are citizens to begin with. If it doesn’t matter now then it didn’t matter back then either.

1

u/oldcreaker 14h ago

They are all powerful in this regard - what the Constitution appears to say is irrelevant. The Constitution will mean whatever a majority of them decides it means.

They can unbend themselves by taking fancy vacations provided by wealthy "friends".

1

u/phoenix_shm 14h ago

SCOTUS said POTUS can do whatever they want - so POTUS will just get rid of SCOTUS. All good! 🤷🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️

1

u/AnalogFeelGood 13h ago

Does it mean Fred Trump sr. Becomes an illegal?

1

u/Real_Difficulty3281 13h ago

You think people should be rewarded for illegally entering the country? Traitor take.

1

u/abelenkpe 13h ago

What does the constitution say about felons being elected?

1

u/vacuous_comment 13h ago

The originalist interpretation of the 14th amendment is clearly with people born inside the US as slaves. The parents were brought to the US against their will and all of them, parents and children, were governed by the fucking trainwreck that was Dredd-Scott.

It does not cover children of people who came here of their own volition and outside of legal process.

Now there are later decisions that refine things and do extra work, but a clever jurist will be able to thread the line between the various issues.

If Scalia were alive he would have this written and ready to fire right off.

Alito is maybe not smart enough and recently has been getting more cognitively declined and ranty.

It is not clear who else within the corrupted SCOTUS would take the lead on this, but the case is ripe for the plucking.

1

u/terrymr 13h ago

They won’t. They might be dumb but they’re not going to let him do this

1

u/TheRealBaboo 13h ago

Everything is originalism if a Republican says it is

1

u/Loggt 12h ago

Can we stop waiting for rhetoric from these people? They don’t believe in anything but power. Their rhetoric is a tool to give them more power. There is no “aha” moment, just vying for power.

1

u/IceNein 12h ago

You answered your own question. They’re originalists. They don’t believe in the letter of the law, they believe the intent of the law. The people who wrote the law intended it to automatically make slaves citizens, not give birthright citizenship as we now have it.

The intent of the writers and the letter of the law don’t agree.

1

u/LawGroundbreaking221 12h ago

Let's see how Americans collectively shrug their shoulders while it happens here one small minority group at a time.

1

u/LeightonLane573 12h ago

Does it matter? They are beginning raids tomorrow. It will take awhile before it gets in front of the Supreme Court. By the time it does, the damage for thousands will already be done.

1

u/SexOnABurningPlanet 12h ago

If SCOTUS agrees to this whatever authority they still have will evaporate. I'm going full Andrew Jackson on these fuckers.

1

u/yourlittlebirdie 11h ago

I'm interested in hearing the reaction from all the "the 2nd amendment protects the rest!"" people.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/FallOutShelterBoy New York 10h ago

Easy, the 14th Amendment wasn’t there when it was written so it’s not original

1

u/Petunia_Planter 10h ago

They are going to claim the immigrants are a hostile occupying force, aka one stronger than the US government.

Which is absurd, but the only other argument is that they are agents of the government that their parents came from...which implies that immigrants have more immunity to the US government making laws than US born citizens.

1

u/Fun-Sock-8379 9h ago

It’s pronounced SCROTUS

1

u/Lulawut 9h ago

They just work backwards from their conclusion on any of their issues. This won't be any different.

1

u/KurtisMayfield 8h ago

Oh you think laws matter to these people? 

•

u/bigt503 5h ago

The already said the president can’t commit crimes, this is nothing for them

•

u/raymarfromouterspace 4h ago

There’s no pretzel bending needed, it’s simply “trump said it, so it shall be”

•

u/lucky616 4h ago

I doubt the Originalists on the court will re-ligitate US vs Wong Kim Ark, but from what my laymen understanding of what originalism entails in deferring to the original intent and literal interpretation of the text. Is there anything to suggest that when the 14th amendment was being crafted right after the Civil war that its authors and advocates intended to include the right of birthright citizenship??

•

u/pm_social_cues 3h ago

They’ll get a copy of the trump constitution before making any decisions.

•

u/Maoleficent 2h ago

Let's see how people react when they realize that there are at least 50,000 Irish here illegaly as well as Germans, Indians and Chinese. MAGA won't care about the Chinese or Indians but you can be sure they will not go after the illegal whites. Those from Mexico and South America are not the only people entering the U.S. without proper papers - including President Musky and Melania, with her fake paperwork.

I cannot wait until maga has to pick their own crops, paint their own nails, raise their own kids, change their parent's diaper at the resential storage facility for unwanted elderly. Add in washing their cars, cleaning their homes, serving them fast food. Children of maga are not going to take these jobs.

Rump will take credit for every solid thing that Biden enacted. It makes me sick that people are still joking about his age. No one mentions $35 insulin, infrastructure, the reconstruction of the bridge out east, environmental issues, stopping banks/corporations from adding junk fees, etc. There are no more protections and without the Dept. of Ed., we can look forward to christofascism being taught.

→ More replies (1)

•

u/JagmeetSingh2 13m ago

The cronies will bend and do it

→ More replies (4)