Summary

Donald Trump’s pledge to end birthright citizenship faces major legal barriers, but experts say it’s slightly more conceivable now due to the conservative Supreme Court majority.

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., and scholars argue Trump’s proposed executive action would likely be struck down.

Conservatives claim the amendment’s “jurisdiction” clause could exclude children of undocumented immigrants, though most experts disagree.

Ending birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment, an unlikely feat, and scholars warn it could revive caste-like inequality in the U.S.

  • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 month ago

    The constitution is very clear about birthright citizenship. But then, it’s also pretty fucking clear about not allowing insurrectionists to be president, and that presidents aren’t supposed to be above the law.

  • ZetaLightning94@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Amendments can only be taken away through a 2/3s vote in congress. Being that the split is damn near 50/50 he will never get the votes to remove the Amendment. Executive orders cannot supercede amendments either.

    • gsfraley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      It truly doesn’t matter. As mentioned elsewhere, the Supreme Court will play whatever Calvinball rules are needed to make it happen, logic be damned. The fact that “corporations are people” and “presidential immunity is a complete defense for provable crimes” are said with legitimacy is proof that any faith you hold in the rule of law is null and void.

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      It doesn’t matter…at all…he executes the order, deports everyone, the case makes it to the supreme Court sometime around 27 or 28 after the damage has been done.

      The ruling won’t matter at that point. It’s pretty standard GoP procedure these days.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      it only takes the two scotus seats moscow mitch helped steal for the diaper for episode 1.

      from obama (“it’s an election year”… it was only march, ffs; scalia’s seat remained empty for 14 months)

      and from biden (barrett confirmed just eight fucking days before election; gross contradiction of the above)

      had obama and biden filled those two seats, the scotus balance would be 5-4 the other way. roe would still be law of the land. donvict may have seen some actual consequence for his illegal activities without ‘his’ judges to give him a golden get-out-of-jail-free card, and he’d be sulking in a sand trap in flordia on jan 20, 2025.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly say, “anyone born on US territory automatically gets US citizenship.” That is the straightforward interpretation of the text that has been precedent for well over a century. But it’s not like the present court gives much credence to historical precedent. Hell, look at the 2nd Amendment. The idea that it grants a strong individual right to unrestricted firearm ownership is a very recent interpretation, historically speaking. Or look at the Emoluments clause, which Trump flagrantly violates. Conservative legal scholars already have an interpretation on the Constitution that would allow them to end birthright citizenship. All SCOTUS has to do is to endorse that interpretation.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Mhmm, the Constitution and what Army? It’s a piece of paper and I don’t see people lining up to defend it.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s wild to see mainstream journalists openly admitting that it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says.

    • Jesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The article says that the language in the constitution is for birthright citizenship, but the conservatives will try to make some sort of stupid nuanced argument to create a loophole that kick kids of undocumented immigrants out of the country.

      But if Trump were to try to use executive action to eliminate birthright citizenship, courts would probably strike it down because of language contained in the 14th amendment, according to scholars.

      Still, given the conservative majority on the supreme court – and fact that one of the people considered a candidate for the court has argued that the provision does not apply to children of “invading aliens” – it’s not a certainty that birthright citizenship will remain in place, said Amanda Frost, a University of Virginia law professor and expert in immigration and citizenship law.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    If the scotus allowed this, this would be an epic clusterfuck across the nation. If you’re the kid of undocumented immigrants and your citizenship is no longer valid, how about your kids? How about your kids kids?

    This would be such a fucking shit show.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      There’s already a caste system in the US multiple studies have told us the class mobility is dead. Has been for 20 years.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    scholars warn it could revive caste-like inequality in the U.S.

    Revive?

    Lmao. Class mobility died in 2005. It’s been a caste system for 20 years.