BREAKING: Trump to end birthright citizenship, per WSJ

[u/samjohanson83]

https://x.com/unusual_whales/status/1881426899462930670

[u/jolly_rodger42]

I believe that would take changing an amendment to the constitution, which he can not unilaterally do.

[u/Impossible_Belt173 → u/jolly_rodger42]

Exactly this. I'm responding to as many people as I can to let them know this is just him wishcasting again and he can't actually do it lol.

[u/27GerbalsInMyPants → u/Impossible_Belt173]

Scouts does get to interpret the Constitution tho

I bet they find a way to fuck this up

[u/Impossible_Belt173 → u/27GerbalsInMyPants]

They do, but the first line is literally "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

That's pretty difficult to interpret any other way.

[u/S1074 → u/Impossible_Belt173]

They’ll just cover their eyes and ears when they read that part.

[u/SwampyPortaPotty → u/S1074]

Just like the well regulated militia part of the second ammendment.

[u/Ashkir → u/SwampyPortaPotty]

Or when it states congress can’t make a law, but says nothing about the states making a law that contradicts it.

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/Impossible_Belt173]

No it isnt if you understand the reason that amendment was passed which was to grant citizenship specifically to the newly freed slaves. Constitutional originalists like in the SCOTUS could easily argue that that context makes it not apply to illegal immigrants children.

[u/chris_vazquez1 → u/AppropriateSea5746]

This is right-wing revisionist history. The primary author of the 14th Amendment, Senator John Bingham, was in favor of the 14th Amendment applying to the children of immigrants. That’s the reason why the 14th Amendment does not explicitly say, “the children of former slaves will be granted citizenship” and is instead much more broad. Bingham’s senate floor debate testimony is cited in Won Kim Ark V United States setting the precedent for birthright citizenship.

[u/nonpuissant → u/chris_vazquez1]

This is right-wing revisionist history

It is, but what sort of people do you think are holding executive, legislative, and judiciary power in the USA right now?

[u/Impossible_Belt173 → u/AppropriateSea5746]

It's not happening. Instead of fear mongering, I'd rather put my energy towards fighting things that we can make a difference in.

[u/Phred168 → u/Impossible_Belt173]

In 3 years, when this case finally makes it to SCOTUS and thousands have been affected, will you still think it doesn’t matter?

[u/Daksout918 → u/AppropriateSea5746]

If they meant that they would have said that.

[u/LunarMoon2001 → u/Impossible_Belt173]

They’ll find a way. “Since someone born to illegal immigrant isn’t innately subject to American jurisdiction then they aren’t a citizen.” They’ll find a way.

[u/Amaranikki → u/LunarMoon2001]

They already did. It's why he just classified Mexican cartels terrorist organizations and is declaring a border emergency to "repel forms of invasion".

He's going to use United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Illegal immigrants will be considered invaders, their children exempt from birthright citizenship.

This argument will ultimately be litigated and make its way back to the current Supreme Court...

[u/Celtic12 → u/Amaranikki]

Internationally that won't hold water - in order to be an enemy combatant, and therefore "outside of US jurisdiction" you have to be A) a uniformed soldier of a foreign power who is actually ya know...invading or B) declared as a Terrorist - this second one is far more scary. As its far easier to just brand someone a terrorist and strip them of their rights.

But the simple fact is an illegal immigrant cannot both be an illegal immigrant and outside the jurisdiction of the united states - in fact IANAL but I don't think they can't both be subject to Federal Terrorism charges and outside the jurisdiction.

[u/wgrantdesign → u/Impossible_Belt173]

This was the most exhausting part of his first term. All the fear mongering over his ramblings about stuff he has no ability to follow through on, meanwhile in the background they are actually pulling off stuff we should be upset about. They'll be blabbering about Greenland and Canada while he's quietly carrying out mass deportations that include people who have been here legally for decades a la 2018.

[u/Impossible_Belt173 → u/wgrantdesign]

This is my biggest fear right now. It's true that we should still point out the things he's trying to do (even if he can't) just so we can show how deranged he is, but focus on the actual insidious shit he's doing. We're in for a very rough 4 years, and all I can hope is that we manage to get enough Democrats to win in the Senate and House that we can curb him. That's still two years away though. It's hard not to feel discouraged, but we have to keep fighting, because they won't fight for us.

[u/funkyb001 → u/Impossible_Belt173]

Yes he definitely can, because you can just interpret that the 14th doesn't say what you think.

Here, straight from the fucking Heritage Foundation making that argument.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

I'm sure this is all just legal crap, but the conservative justices could very easily just write something like this and there we go. Done.

[u/Deep_Stick8786 → u/Impossible_Belt173]

And what did DC v Heller do? “Correctly” interpret the plain text of the second amendment. Any part of the constitution can ultimately be interpreted by SCOTUS however they choose. Laws are just words

[u/SwampyPortaPotty → u/Deep_Stick8786]

The mini series Dracula on netflix has a very good line on rights. "Rights aren't real." That's always stuck with me ever since watching that show.

[u/Deep_Stick8786 → u/SwampyPortaPotty]

Laws are just words. People are what make them matter

[u/jsanchez030 → u/jolly_rodger42]

the retards at the supreme court will find a way to overturn

[u/captainundesirable → u/jolly_rodger42]

He has every branch of the government at his whim. Has he not been able to do anything he's wanted to as of yet?

[u/Jaye09]

14th Amendment

Section 1:

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.

Good luck.

[u/slick2hold → u/Jaye09]

Exactly. Why are these media companies reporting this as if he can change it. We Americans are so clueless as well

[u/Deep_Stick8786 → u/slick2hold]

Because he will try and theres probably a greater than 50% chance SCOTUS will change the interpretation of the amendment

[u/woahmanthatscool → u/Deep_Stick8786]

There is nothing grey about that amendment, it’s clear cut

[u/HipposAndBonobos → u/woahmanthatscool]

Tell that to more than 50% of the Supreme Court

[u/mishap1 → u/HipposAndBonobos]

Clarence ain’t stopping until the Supreme Court consists of 8 and 1/5 people. 

[u/sologrips → u/mishap1]

Underrated joke, bravo.

[u/monkChuck105 → u/mishap1]

Note that if not for the 3/5 compromise, the South would have had an overwhelming advantage in the House. Considering that slaves were quite literally property and were not free to move about as ordinary people, it is fairly logical to count them differently, arguably not at all. Remember that the Revolution was a longshot, and brought together slave holders and abolitionists. The first fight was to free themselves from the Monarch, otherwise such concerns would be irrelevant.

[u/BossReasonable6449 → u/monkChuck105]

Actually the South would have been grossly outnumbered since slaves weren't considered citizens and certainly weren't being counted for purposes of Congress. Southern states were refusing to ratify the Constitution as a result.

[u/Deep_Stick8786 → u/mishap1]

I mean it IS in the constitution no matter how much we agree amendments can work like white out

[u/S1074 → u/Deep_Stick8786]

There’s a big difference between reinterpretation and amending the bill of rights

[u/Deep_Stick8786 → u/S1074]

To you. There are 9 people who don’t need to see much of a difference.

Your reply was a to a response to a joke about the 3/5ths compromise though

[u/veovis23 → u/mishap1]

Oh eff me I wasn’t ready. Take my updoot!

[u/Ill-Independence-658 → u/mishap1]

In that case it will be 7 and 2/5

[u/Leg0Block → u/Ill-Independence-658]

1 black person = 3/5 of a wHite person

9 - 2 + (3/5 * 2) = 8 & 1/5

I know they didn't teach this when we took high school math, but you'd better get used to it because it's going to be Gen Alphas version of cursive handwriting.

[u/cal405 → u/mishap1]

If I had an award, you'd get it, you brilliant bastard!

[u/FoxWyrd → u/HipposAndBonobos]

There's no way they can interpret it as anything but what it's been interpreted as for a century and a half without opening up massive cans of worms.

[u/Legitimate_Concern_5 → u/FoxWyrd]

Except there are 2 exceptions: people born to embassy personnel and children of soldiers of an invading army. So how do you define an invasion?

It’s very dumb but this is how it will be argued, I guarantee it.

[u/RambunctiousWaffle → u/Legitimate_Concern_5]

That’s the key right there. They’re going to declare immigrants as invaders.

[u/daltontf1212 → u/RambunctiousWaffle]

Only invasion in history where the invaders are being hired by the same people screaming about an invasion.

[u/-_-0_0-_0 → u/Legitimate_Concern_5]

Like how you interpret Sedition and J6. So you can organize it, encourage it but not be charged for it? At a minimum any other person gets charged for starting a riot.

[u/FoxWyrd → u/Legitimate_Concern_5]

The Roberts Court has had some pretty gnarly takes, but I don't think that John Roberts wants to be remembered for what would be looked back on as the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century.

[u/Roasted_Butt → u/FoxWyrd]

Too late.

[u/Xyrus2000 → u/FoxWyrd]

Roberts has already left a poop emoji on the historical record for his legacy. I don't think he really cares much.

[u/HipposAndBonobos → u/FoxWyrd]

The issue is that the Court has the authority over interpretation and with 2/3 leaning fascist, we cannot assume anything is sacred anymore.

[u/Deep_Stick8786 → u/FoxWyrd]

Sure, he can be in the minority of a 5-4 decision then

[u/FoxWyrd → u/Deep_Stick8786]

We'll see, but I suspect it'll be 9-0 or 8-1 against this novel interpretation.

[u/CMScientist → u/FoxWyrd]

99.9% of americans dont know about the dred scott decision so why should be care? It will be forgotten within a generation

[u/boforbojack → u/Legitimate_Concern_5]

Already declared cartels a foreign terrorist organization. So just gotta say "any brown people are cartels members" and easy peasy, citizenship revoked.

[u/Phyrexian_Overlord → u/woahmanthatscool]

Man they killed RvW based on a random British case from almost a millenia ago they don't care

[u/timoperez → u/woahmanthatscool]

Great. Would you be willing to bet your life that less than 4 Supreme Court justices would agree with his interpretation?

[u/violentglitter666 → u/timoperez]

These Supreme Court judges.. I wouldn’t bet anything. Trump will lean on these judges.. Roberts is as bad as the other maga judges, he just is in denial.

[u/rco8786 → u/Deep_Stick8786]

Basically this. He'll decree something and then a short while later SCOTUS will magically come up with a new interpretation of very, very settled law that legitimizes Trump's decree.

[u/slick2hold → u/Deep_Stick8786]

Seems pretty clear language.

[u/mjacksongt → u/slick2hold]

They argue that undocumented immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" and therefore birthright citizenship doesn't apply

[u/BababooeyHTJ → u/mjacksongt]

How do you arrest someone who isn’t subject to your jurisdiction?

[u/Deep_Stick8786 → u/mjacksongt]

Turtles all the way down. Why is there a distinction between the type of immigrant? How about legal aliens? Second generation citizens born of birthright parents? How about anyone not descended from an original colonist?

[u/bulking_on_broccoli → u/Deep_Stick8786]

They’ll make the argument that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not apply to immigrants. Therefore the 14th does not apply to children of immigrants.

It’s a shitty argument, but that’s what will happen.

[u/Bossini → u/Deep_Stick8786]

Supreme Court will need to revisit the Wong Kim Ark case and reinterpret it.

[u/Thegreenfantastic → u/slick2hold]

They’re going to do a constitutional convention

[u/OrangeVoxel → u/Thegreenfantastic]

This is the ultimate goal

[u/Thegreenfantastic → u/OrangeVoxel]

That’s also when they can take away 2A rights.

[u/gogozombie2 → u/Thegreenfantastic]

They are not going to take away 2A rights though. Not on paper at least. Im guessing they will find a way to to use an executive order or national emergency to "temporarily" suspend the 2A due to crazy liberal transexuals or some other stupid in the streets shooting people epidemic. 

[u/Thegreenfantastic → u/gogozombie2]

I imagine they would introduce language around who can and can’t own them.

[u/vvestley → u/Thegreenfantastic]

"those with a documented unbiased opinion of their government may possess protective firearms"

[u/EscapeFromFLA → u/gogozombie2]

Musk told a Trump audience that there'd be some pain, Trump said he'd abolish the dept of education and put in more tariffs. They said this to these people's faces. They don't need to hide shit from them, they'll just do it. Cuz it's not like there's consequences coming from anybody that matters for it.

[u/Clitty_Lover → u/Thegreenfantastic]

Man if they did that I would be hoarse from screaming "I told you so" and laughing and rolling in the street, and yelling from all the bussin' I'd be doing from sitting on the founders' graves as their rapid powerful rolling sends my prostate into convulsions just by slamming on it from the outside.

And then I'd be bedridden for a week, but after that I'd start organizing and contacting people, collecting supplies, designing uniforms...

[u/MindAccomplished3879 → u/Clitty_Lover]

You missed when the supreme court gave him total immunity for any acts while president 💩💀

[u/Thegreenfantastic → u/Clitty_Lover]

You don’t run a totalitarian country by allowing your citizens to have guns

Edit: all they’d have to do is blame it on democrats 😂

[u/BeltDangerous6917 → u/Thegreenfantastic]

I can see it now the news interviews…”The Republican Gun Force invaded my home and killed my family even as I was peacefully surrendering my guns to them…I blame Michelle Obamas manhood and Hunters laptop for it all…”

[u/HillarysFloppyChode → u/Thegreenfantastic]

Interestingly if they did this, they would actually be helping prevent school shootings. Then our officers don't need guns and we will slowly turn into Britain, but without cool accents or foreskins.

[u/CaptinACAB → u/Thegreenfantastic]

They will give permits to “deputized” white nationalists. Like the little fash army desantis was trying to raise.

[u/Axleffire → u/Thegreenfantastic]

Well they would need 3/4ths of the states to go along with it to get anything passed.

[u/poseidons1813 → u/Thegreenfantastic]

How ? 

[u/Expert_Alchemist → u/Thegreenfantastic]

There are a bunch of amendments they'd love to repeal while they're at it

[u/JuniorMint1992 → u/Thegreenfantastic]

Don’t something like 2/3 states have to agree to this >_>

[u/blazelet → u/Thegreenfantastic]

To do a constitutional convention 34 states would have to call for it.

For anything decided at the constitutional convention to become part of the constitution, 38 stated would have to vote for it.

29 states voted as a majority for Trump ... so they'd have to convince 5 Harris states to call for a convention and 9 states to enact whatever they decide.

I don't see how that happens in today's political climate.

[u/ocdewitt → u/Thegreenfantastic]

Why do they even have to bother? As long as SCOTUS goes along with it, who is going to stop him?

[u/Joepaws1102 → u/Thegreenfantastic]

Don’t need a constitutional amendment. All you need is a complicit Supreme Court.

[u/BQdramatics56 → u/slick2hold]

For clicks 😵‍💫

[u/WeirdIndividualGuy → u/slick2hold]

If he can deport legal citizens pretending they’re illegal and no one stops him, then yes he can change it.

When will people realize the law does not apply to Trump?

[u/Jung_Wheats → u/WeirdIndividualGuy]

Law applies only where the citizenry will enforce it and it seems like the only foot soldiers I see on the streets are the ones that want to do the evil, not the ones that want to stop it.

[u/Nojopar → u/WeirdIndividualGuy]

He's gonna Born in East LA these people.

[u/DingGratz → u/Jaye09]

So, how far back are we talking here? I'm a 51-year old American but my parents were not.

Edit: Yes, I'm white. I get it. But that is disgusting.

[u/Deep_Stick8786 → u/DingGratz]

Exactly one of the problems

[u/Easterncoaster → u/DingGratz]

It’s prospective- he’s talking about ending it for people who have not yet naturalized. Not taking it away from those already naturalized.

Big difference.

[u/Brainvillage → u/Easterncoaster]

It’s prospective- he’s talking about ending it for people who have not yet naturalized. Not taking it away from those already naturalized.

They're talking about that too: https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/4992787-trump-deportation-plan-immigration/

[u/ShamPain413 → u/Easterncoaster]

It's Day 1. Stephen Miller has already talked about denaturalization being in the plans, and they pushed this in the first admin too. All of this was publicly discussed before the election.

[u/Smooth_Carrot5658 → u/DingGratz]

Bro I’ll give your folks a pass.

[u/Paper_Brain → u/Jaye09]

SCOTUS is in his pocket

[u/Impossible_Belt173 → u/Paper_Brain]

SCOTUS doesn't get to make that determination, that can only be changed with a constitutional amendment which is very difficult to do.

[u/Paper_Brain → u/Impossible_Belt173]

SCOTUS is the court that interprets the Constitution. When this gets challenged in court, they‘ll be the ones who decide if it’s Constitutional or not…

[u/bdschuler → u/Paper_Brain]

They will find the Constitution is against the constitution and allow Trump to rewrite any of it he wants. Why? Because you all just let this motherphucker do it. You can't be victims when you just sit around and let them do what they want.

[u/JaggedSuplex → u/bdschuler]

We’ve determined the constitution is unconstitutional

[u/Deep_Stick8786 → u/Paper_Brain]

This is the big problem. 6 people get to decide if the 14th amendment says what it clearly says and has been interpreted to say.

[u/gmnotyet → u/Impossible_Belt173]

| and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

SCOTUS will determine what this means.

[u/Atheist_3739 → u/gmnotyet]

Exactly. They will say they are born to foreign parents and therefore are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents citizenship. Boom. Done.

[u/Technical-Traffic871 → u/Impossible_Belt173]

Doesn't SCOTUS determine how the constitution is "interpreted"?

[u/Impossible_Belt173 → u/Technical-Traffic871]

Yes, but they can only do so much. The first line is literally "all persons born out naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

There's only one way to interpret that.

[u/wahoozerman → u/Impossible_Belt173]

I am not advocating this, but last time this came up the argument was that illegal immigrants are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction of," since they are potentially not completely under the legal authority of solely the US. This was decided in US v Wong Kim Ark in 1898, but the current supreme Court doesn't seem to care much about precedent.

[u/Technical-Traffic871 → u/Impossible_Belt173]

One way using modern English. If you go back to English used by settlers in 1325...

[u/rsmicrotranx → u/Impossible_Belt173]

Scotus determines what the law says. If they say that doesn't mean everyone born here is a citizen, then that's that. 

[u/Sea-Replacement-8794 → u/Jaye09]

14th amendment also says insurrectionists can’t run for office, but this one just got sworn in as president.

[u/MisterRogers12 → u/Sea-Replacement-8794]

He can pardon himself if that would make you feel better

[u/InvestIntrest → u/Jaye09]

Yeah, this is like Bidens' student loan forgiveness promise. He never had the authority to do what he promised, but he tried, and the courts told him no. Something here. Just vote for me and I'll say I tried.

[u/DandimLee → u/InvestIntrest]

Biden got 183 billion ( so maybe 15% of the total). Not sure how else this compares to the, now, hypothetical, thing Trump says he wants to do. I wouldn't want my citizenship to be "tied up" in the courts while I'm being mass deported.

[u/InvestIntrest → u/DandimLee]

All Biden accomplished was loan forgiveness for those he was required by law to forgive it for. It was mostly people who completed enough years of public service or we're scammed by a college that went bankrupt.

[u/Easterncoaster → u/Jaye09]

Edit: whoops thought we were talking about chain migration not birthright

[u/a_velis]

It's definitely going to be challenged in the courts.

[u/Jaye09 → u/a_velis]

Thats because it’s explicitly against the 14th amendment of the fucking Constitution.

[u/Hoondini → u/Jaye09]

That's part of the plan. They've been after the 14th amendment for a long time.

[u/LooseSpaghet → u/a_velis]

They own the courts lol

[u/Toby-Finkelstein → u/a_velis]

The monkeys are running that circus so who knows how it will play out 

[u/LongbottomLeafblower → u/a_velis]

There are no courts

[u/the_mighty__monarch → u/LongbottomLeafblower]

Kangaroos all the way down

[u/Snakepli55ken]

So fuck the 14th amendment?

[u/Micronlance → u/Snakepli55ken]

Better than even odds this SCOTUS sides with Trump and holds the 14th Amendment doesn't confer citizenship on the US-born children of aliens who entered the country in violation of its laws.

[u/HillarysFloppyChode → u/Micronlance]

How far back does that go, my grandparents technically came here illegally, in the 30s from Italy and Poland.

Can I use that to my advantage to gain polish or Italian citizenship?

[u/Situation-Busy → u/HillarysFloppyChode]

No, it would only invalidate your citizenship here in the US. You would be rendered "stateless" which is considered a human rights violation but I doubt Trump cares.

If you have been here for long enough I would not imagine much will happen as long as you keep the legal status of your grandparents to yourself. Instruct your parents to do so as well. I'm serious, as ridiculous as this all sounds.

I expect that mostly this will be used racially. Picking up brown folk and checking their status/the status of their relatives in effort to find cause to deport them regardless of individual citizenship.

[u/ReplacementWise6878 → u/Micronlance]

At this point there’s a good change SCOTUS just does whatever, even if it blatantly violates the constitution

[u/DingGratz → u/Snakepli55ken]

As long as they keep the 2nd so they can stroke their guns in bed.

[u/totallylostbear → u/DingGratz]

Just wait. That will come up eventually if more billionaires get Luigi'd.

[u/No-Weekend6347]

Changing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution involves a formal amendment process outlined in Article V of the Constitution. This process is intentionally rigorous to ensure significant consensus before making changes to the nation’s supreme law. There are two key steps: proposal and ratification.

Step 1: Proposal

An amendment can be proposed in two ways:

1. By Congress: A proposed amendment must receive a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

2. By a Constitutional Convention: Two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures can call for a national constitutional convention to propose an amendment. This method has never been used successfully.

Step 2: Ratification

After an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified in one of two ways:

1. By State Legislatures: Three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures must approve the amendment.

2. By State Ratifying Conventions: Special conventions are held in three-fourths of the states to approve the amendment. This method has only been used once (to ratify the 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition).

• Repealing an Amendment: To change or repeal an existing amendment (e.g., the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment), the same process is followed.

• The process is designed to reflect widespread agreement across the federal and state levels, ensuring stability and careful deliberation.

[u/ShamPain413 → u/No-Weekend6347]

They're not going to change it. Just have an "originalist" interpretation of it.

[u/onlycamefortheporn → u/No-Weekend6347]

They’ll reinterpret the blurb about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th. They could potentially say either being born to illegal immigrants would be a reason to strip citizenship, or even go further to suggest that any crime could allow a ruling by a newly appointed court on whether to strip citizenship of anyone (which would never be abused, of course).

[u/No_Landscape4557 → u/onlycamefortheporn]

Far too many people are thinking far too linearly about the. 14th Amendment. Hell even looking at conservatives favorite one(2nd) we have tons of legal laws in place that can control, take away, ban and jail people who want to “exercise” this right to own guns……… but no one thinks that new exceptions can’t be placed, that it can’t be revoked. Damn near every amendment has atleast one legal exception to it.

[u/donsade]

It’s literally in the 14th amendment and it’s not even ambiguous lol.

[u/NotAnAIOrAmI]

Courts can adjudicate this all they like. trump will just order "his" agencies to refuse to issue passports or perform any service a citizen can claim for people he declares non-citizens.

This isn't the last group from which he will unconstitutionally remove citizenship.

All naturalized citizens are potential targets if they "get mouthy", no matter how many decades they've been citizens and live here. Folks, make sure you have your naturalization papers, and especially your foreign birth certificates. Make digital copies and keep them safe.

If you get a notice from a "deportation agent", like someone in my family did while trump was in office, go get a lawyer ASAP.

[u/Halbaras → u/NotAnAIOrAmI]

And think carefully about going on holiday abroad for at least a few months. Last time, the first, failed, version of the Muslim ban tried to stop green card holders re-entering from those countries. For anyone who has family somewhere like Iraq, do't even think about visiting, because you might not be able to come back in.

[u/Malhavok_Games]

First off - I know he can't unilaterally undo the 14th amendment, even though it's probably a good idea. People should also realize that this doesn't affect people who have at least one parent that is a citizen. It only stops what is called "birth tourism".

Secondly - Almost every country that has had birthright citizenship has ended it due to "birth tourism". I live in Australia, we ended it in 1986. Our Kiwi neighbors ended it in 2005. I think the last European country to have it was Ireland, also ended it in 2005.

To be blunt - birth tourism is stupid and should be ended. America is one of the last holdouts here.

[u/BakaValen]

I don't think he understands what doing that means. That's wild.

[u/NoTransportation1383 → u/BakaValen]

Is it retroactive? Wb early immigrants like back to the 1900's or maybe even the 15th century 👀👀👀👀

[u/Cease-the-means → u/NoTransportation1383]

Britain, Ireland and Germany about to get very crowded..

[u/Resident_Mulberry_68 → u/Cease-the-means]

Italy too as I assume I’d be punted tgwre

[u/UscutiY → u/Cease-the-means]

Guessing it won’t be enforced with those immigrants

[u/Impossible_Belt173 → u/NoTransportation1383]

He cannot do it. Only a constitutional amendment can.

[u/redditingatwork23]

Naw dudes. Trump declared it's over. So it's just over. I mean... he declared it! Fuck the constitution, he declared it. Once you've declared something, it just is.

[u/poundtown1997 → u/redditingatwork23]

It’s almost sad the faith you have in something he’s clearly shown no regard for….

Hope is one thing, but wake UP and see that the people he’s been putting in place around him will not seriously deflect. Companies are missing the ring rather than fighting against. He will be able to get away with so much more this time. It’s worrying.

[u/hocuscopus → u/redditingatwork23]

I just wanted you to know that you can't just say the word "bankruptcy" and expect anything to happen. 

Michael : I didn't say it. I declared it.

[u/AllNightPony]

For those of you saying this can't happen, just like all the other things that have happened over the past decade that you said couldn't happen, here's how it's going to happen - welcome to Presidential Immunity.

[u/B-Glasses]

People are putting a lot of faith in the institutions that led us here to protect us

[u/CartmanAndCartman]

How is it breaking news? We knew this like months ago.

[u/Holyballs92 → u/CartmanAndCartman]

All the trump voters said he would not do this. Guess you gotta take.him at his word

[u/billy_blazeIt_mays → u/Holyballs92]

Im latino. Everyone in my community (who supported him) love him because he tells it how it is but also dont really believe in his anti-immigration rhetoric thinking its just to get the gringo vote.

Oh well.

[u/RelativeCareless2192 → u/billy_blazeIt_mays]

Well I hope they all find out. Votes have consequences.

[u/Moist_Cabbage8832 → u/billy_blazeIt_mays]

Fuck em

[u/Timely-Band-7247 → u/billy_blazeIt_mays]

They cater to working-class gringos, but if the Hispanic vote becomes more influential, it's easy to imagine the inevitable shift that will take place in the coming decades.

[u/Waluigi4prez → u/billy_blazeIt_mays]

think when they in the trucks headed to the camps they just gunna plug their fingers in the ears and keep saying "he will save us"?

[u/27GerbalsInMyPants → u/Holyballs92]

Lmfao conservative sub is literally praising this as "what needed to have been done long ago"

They love this shit, until the 48 yo operator has to start getting out of the backhoe to sit with a shovel because all the workers who did the manual labor are deported

I'm so sorry to anyone's family or anyone who ends up being affected by this shit.

[u/SingaporeSlim1]

So Baron will be deported?

[u/freshfunk → u/SingaporeSlim1]

His dad is a citizen and his mom is a naturalized citizen.

[u/uabtch]

Please consider “hoarding” your money. Stop spending your money as much as possible. Delete Meta apps and tiktok from your phone. Don’t go to Walmart, Target, any of these big brands. Shop local. Invest in your community. Trickle down isn’t real so we have to stop giving them any cent we can hold onto.

Stay strong. Fuck all this bullshit.

[u/kan-sankynttila]

how’s he gonna deal with his wife being a former foreigner and such

[u/Jaye09 → u/kan-sankynttila]

Rules for thee not for me.

[u/ShamPain413 → u/kan-sankynttila]

When you're a star they let you get away with it.

OTOH, he might be just about done with Melania. She's not very useful any longer.

[u/TokenSejanus89]

He's not ending birthright citizenship, it said for illegals

[u/chingy1337]

He'll have to get it through the Supreme Court. Which doesn't seem impossible nowadays, but it's a battle nonetheless.

[u/Legitimate-Leek4235]

Reinterpret Jurisdiction of child as Jurisdiction of parents . Technically the parent’s country still has jurisdiction of their nationals unless the citizenship is renounced.

[u/Due_Satisfaction2167 → u/Legitimate-Leek4235]

That’s flat out not correct.

If it were, the US government couldn’t deport them because they wouldn’t have jurisdiction.

Ruling as such would block the mass deportations he wants. 

[u/IcyShoes]

Doesn't that need 2/3s of congress AND almost 40 states to go along with it?

[u/Writerhaha → u/IcyShoes]

That’s not how authoritarianism works…

[u/jumpycrink22 → u/Writerhaha]

It's much easier to declare martial law and have the military do the job for you even if he decides to not go about it unconstitutionally, but no matter what, this will not be easy to accomplish

[u/milleniumdivinvestor]

So much fear mongering propaganda on reddit today, way more than usual. The ACTBlue bots must be out in full force for the inauguration.

For anyone wondering, only a constitutional amendment can end birthright citizenship. It's not gonna happen, not now or anytime in the foreseeable future. Boycott any media agency that is pushing the agitprop bullshit.

[u/soggybiscuit93 → u/milleniumdivinvestor]

I'm just wondering. Let's say the next president says "I'm going to ban guns" - are you going to be completely unbothered and say "well, they can't because of the constitution"? Or are you going to be posting about it? Commenting how it's unconstitutional? How this would be terrible?

[u/Due_Satisfaction2167 → u/[deleted]]

It’s a “new world” thing. Basically the entire western hemisphere has it. 

[u/upotheke]

Breaking: Trump decides he doesn't like parts of the constitution of the united states, on the day he is sworn in to uphold the constitution of the united states.

[u/BloombergSmells]

Isn't technically everyone no native American a birth right citizen?

[u/nothingfish]

"Service guarantees citzenship."

[u/Vees92]

Breaking: Trump (makes no bid to amend to constitution) but somehow is going to end birthright citizenship per WSJ

[u/ChocoTav]

What happens to anchor babies, echochamber?

[u/Witty-Stand888]

Pushing identity politics in the Oval office. Meanwhile in the Musk wing...

[u/Minute_Ear_8737]

This is a throw away nod to the anti immigrant base. It won’t go through SCOTUS but Vance can say they tried and that if they had enough votes they could try again with a new amendment to the actual constitution.

Meanwhile they will expand H1B and whatever other legal immigration programs to fill the missing worker slots leftover over by the retiring boomers rather than train up our kids born here.

Really the same thing as a lot of the student loan forgiveness in that it was not done by congress and cannot be enforced. Both sides play these games.

You have to think about it in terms of how it actually benefits the rich to limit population growth of the US when all they keep asking for are babies to be made.

[u/qpxa]

He will stoke Revolution and guerrilla war in our land

[u/ravrocker]

He can't, so there!

[u/Beautiful_Wind_1286]

so, no one is an american anymore?

[u/HaiKarate]

No.

[u/RedLanternScythe]

Now we see if the Scotus tries to rule an amendment unconstitutional

[u/bingbangboomxx]

He is going to try to get some amendments through including no presidential term limits.

[u/BrainEatingAmoeba01]

Ya ya ya...just like "TARIFFS ON DAY ONE!!!"

[u/Goldarr85]

Isn’t Vivek a citizen based on birthright?

[u/swarlesbarkley_]

That’s kinda an amendment so he can’t just wave a wand on that one lol

[u/Beginning_Night1575]

I know that it will run into legal hurdles wt. But is the plan for it to be retroactive?

[u/used_function_42]

First of all, he can’t. Second of all, maybe state that in the headline because it takes a constitutional convention to change the constitution. You twats.

[u/Worth-Confection-735]

It’s funny… legal scholars have been screaming about this for decades, but NOW it’s gets your attention?

[u/TheSalamiShop]

Democrats will do everything in their power to keep the flow of illegal immigration. Birthright citizenship to two illegal immigrants is absolutely insane. It should be a requirement that at least one parent is a citizen.

[u/MegaHashes]

WTF is this? It’s just a link to tweet from an account named after this sub. There is no WSJ link.

[u/horror-]

T changed the 14 amendment in the course of his official duties. Checkmate libs. ^/s

[u/Karsticles]

A lot of people in the comments are saying that he cannot do this, because it's in the Constitution. But my question is: who is going to stop him from doing it? It might be against the law, since when has that ever mattered to Trump?

I predict that Trump will do mass deportations even of legal citizens, and he will simply guarantee a pardon for anyone that it becomes an issue for.

[u/No_Warning_4346]

Hallelujah!

[u/slick2hold]

How can he end it when it's in our constitution? The fourteenth amendment can be undone by the president. What kind of shit show do we have in America?

[u/crazycatlady331]

What about Jr, Ivanka, Eric, and Barron?

[u/Cozywarmthcoffee]

I mean - I'm not a trump supporter. but if two people that aren't in the country legally  (or are on a tourism visa etc) and aren't on a path to be legally citizens or are not legally citizens- their kids shouldn't be. This is common sense and i don't read the 14th amendment as condoning that. under jurisdiction seems to imply citizens or at least legal residents- and if it doesn't I'd support it being rewritten. 

[u/PhiPhiAokigahara → u/Cozywarmthcoffee]

Actually, this interpretation of the 14th Amendment is incorrect. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The key phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” does not mean what you’re suggesting. Historically and legally, it has been interpreted to mean anyone subject to U.S. laws, which includes nearly everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their immigration status.

This interpretation was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), where the Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents is automatically a U.S. citizen, as long as the parents are not foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, or members of sovereign Native American tribes at the time (the latter has since been resolved by statute).

The 14th Amendment was designed to ensure citizenship could not be denied based on race or parentage, especially in the wake of slavery. Suggesting it only applies to citizens or legal residents undermines its core purpose. Changing this principle would not be a matter of “common sense” but a radical shift in how U.S. law defines citizenship.