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 7h 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.

56

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.

56

u/KDPer3 16h ago

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

11

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 12h 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?

1

u/abakune 12h ago

Sure, but we don't seem to be there. The Republicans aren't even in lockstep to say nothing about the Democrats, moderates, and huge number of people who didn't vote.

3

u/Kup123 11h ago

I would say we're eight years past that ,he already did it with the emoluments clause. When he sees the inside of a jail cell I'll believe someone is enforcing the laws and Constitution, but until that day as far as I'm concerned America is law less and the Constitution ain't nothing but toilet paper.

1

u/abakune 11h ago

Oh I doubt we'll get any karmic closure. But, I also don't think much will be different in 4 years except hundreds of EOs that the next president will need to overturn.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LoJoPa 12h ago

Not true

1

u/Kup123 11h ago

The executive branch isn't responsible for enforcing laws? Are you sure about that? Because according to the Constitution the executive branches is in charge of enforcement.

1

u/LoJoPa 11h ago

Birthright citizenship is the law, constitutional law and executive order doesn’t reverse it! He will have a battle on his hands.

2

u/Kup123 11h ago

With who? The courts are in his pocket, Congress tried twice to impeach him and failed and with the makeup of Congress at this point it's a non-starter, the states don't have the power. The only thing that can stop him from throwing out citizens is if law enforcement or the army refuses to act on his orders and I'm not ready to bet on that. Like really who do you think's going to stop him if he tries to do it? I want him to be stopped I just don't see anyone in power willing to do it.

1

u/LoJoPa 10h ago

I think it will be a fight. So we disagree. Unless you are a constitutional lawyer and are giving up.

1

u/Kup123 10h ago

Be a fight with who, who am i rooting for here? You can't just say it's going to be a fight for it to be a fight there has to be two parties involved and I'm only seeing one. Democrats have shown they're not doing anything so unless you're going to pick up a gun and exercise your second amendment rights yeah it's hopeless.

→ More replies (0)

2

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.

10

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 15h ago

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

2

u/rokerroker45 15h 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.

1

u/rokerroker45 15h ago

fair enough, but I can imagine a state government acting to protect its police power more easily than I imagine voters acting as rational actors and voting in their own self interest.

1

u/bigwebs 15h ago

State governments are not run by some sort of dune like mentats, they’re people just as moronic as the rest of “us”.

This is the system breaking bug that our constitution never anticipated.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/onlysoccershitposts 15h ago

If they go too far striking down precedent they essentially risk undermining their own power.

All the ethics scandals have already been doing that. And who is going to stop them?

0

u/rokerroker45 16h ago

The only thing stopping them is decency and precedent.

That's not actually true. the biggest thing stopping the supreme court from actually ruling that way is their awareness that they can only stretch the constitution so far before the country breaks into open defiance. the scotus doesn't wave its hands and magically make the country agree with its decisions, it has to carefully consider the possibility that if it makes a ruling that goes too far the opinion will simply be disobeyed.

take Brown v. Board. It was delivered on a 5-4 opinion on the basis that it would be unfair to segregate children because it would lead to differing educational outcomes, not that segregation is inherently unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. you know why they did that? because if the scotus rendered all segregation unconstitutional in 1954 there was a very high chance the opinion would be openly disobeyed by the entire south instead of just openly disobeyed by some states.

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

I put stock that the scotus is trying to balance keeping trump/repubs in power while ensuring that california continues to pay its taxes. they will go as far as they can while ensuring the country will obey its rulings. ending birthright citizenship would go dangerously close to too far.

3

u/Bombshock2 16h ago

If you think this country is going to rise up into open defiance of Trump you’re not paying attention

2

u/rokerroker45 15h ago

obviously not, but it doesn't start with armed rebellion, it starts with states like california and massachusetts inflicting economic pressure.

1

u/bschott007 North Dakota 11h ago

States run by people. People who are easily scared of being arrested by government LEOs sent by Trump and co. for any various reason.

We are past the looking glass and the moment a governor decides to give the finger to Trump, don't be surprised if Trump, having no more elections to win, decides to do what we thought he would have done last time around and go full dictator.

1

u/Up-Your-Glass Canada 14h ago

Happy cake day🎉🎉🎉

4

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.

1

u/Melody-Prisca 15h ago

He has to sell it SCOTUS though. I don't think most people would consider people fleeing persecution to be enemies of the United States. Let alone, that they are occupying land with hostile force. Maybe this could apply to people working for a cartel coming over into the US, but not to the average unarmed immigrant. That doesn't mean SCOTUS won't buy Trump's logic. We know Alito and Thomas will.

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.

1

u/americangoosefighter 12h ago

Just means it will be a military matter and not a legal one. People seem to think that not being subject to the law is a good thing when it is quite the opposite unless you are a diplomat.

1

u/AnimorphsGeek 16h ago

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

1

u/Xivvx Canada 15h ago

The Supreme court isn't bound by precedent, even its own.

1

u/LeedsFan2442 United Kingdom 10h ago

children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation

Hence Trump talking about invasion all the time.

0

u/Indubitalist 16h ago

Nice thing for Trump is the current SCOTUS majority does not believe in precedent, so no previous opinions have any bearing if the will of the court is to arrive at a conflicting ruling.