Summary

Trump announced plans to end birthright citizenship via executive action, despite its constitutional basis in the 14th Amendment.

He also outlined a mass deportation policy, starting with undocumented immigrants who committed crimes and potentially expanding to mixed-status families, who could face deportation as a unit.

Trump said he wants to avoid family separations but left the decision to families.

While doubling down on immigration restrictions, Trump expressed willingness to work with Democrats to create protections for Dreamers under DACA, citing their long-standing integration into U.S. society.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    447 months ago

    14th Amendment to the US Constitution

    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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      417 months ago

      Yeah, it’s there, but as we’ve clearly seen, if the law isn’t enforced, or is selectively enforced, it might as well not exist.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        157 months ago

        Hell this exact amendment was openly ignored for nearly a century in that it is also meant to provide equality under the law for all citizens. But Women couldn’t even vote for decades after this amendment was passed. Then there were a ton of laws on the books that were actively enforced that discriminated on race, sex, etc. Women’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement should not have been necessary after this amendment was passed. And yet…

      • morriscox
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        17 months ago

        Couldn’t Trump just declare it that it’s an official act?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 months ago

        If they’re not “subject to the jurisdiction”, doesn’t that mean they can just commit whatever crimes they want? Could they even be deported?

        But that assumes the Republicans would be logical and consistent, when they are neither.

      • BarqsHasBite
        link
        fedilink
        57 months ago

        which is probably gonna be that unauthorized immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

        From opening arguments podcast they said that was intended if say Mexico or Canada invaded, the soldiers bring their wives who give birth, then those kids are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and not to be granted citizenship.

        Of course lawyers can twist anything and scotus is rigged, so expect that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        87 months ago

        Isn’t it crazy that only one person on that list is just a mere millionaire, the rest are billionaires?

        Jr posted “Internet let’s do your thing, let’s find this guy” because he knew it was attack on his class.

        If we want to Make America Great Again we needed to get rid of these parasites. They make us fight with each other, while they are the reason we get poorer and poorer.

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      47 months ago

      14A S3 wasn’t enforced, why should 14A S1 be?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        37 months ago

        Because it wasn’t previously decided. However, in this case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is the Supreme Court ruling that determined the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States regardless of race or nationality.

        In order to reverse, the court itself has to do it. Not that it wouldn’t.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      17 months ago

      They are going to claim that if their patents are here illegally they aren’t ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. No matter how stupid that idea is their supreme court may let it go anyway. They already shit all over other parts of the 14th.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          47 months ago

          There’s no confusion over the subject, just an expectation that the current SCOTUS could play the “Constitution doesn’t apply if the mother had no legal standing to actually be in the US” argument. That technically that hasn’t been established, and that there’s an implicit expectation that people giving birth in the US are legally recognized to be in the US, and all bets are off if the mother isn’t legally allowed in the US but gives birth in the US anyway. To the extent they seek being explicit about legal standing, they may point to the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” words as stating an illegal presence means that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US or the state.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      57 months ago

      Let’s see how much the Constitution matters in a month and a half. Everyone who responds to the upcoming Trump madness with “it’s unconstitutional” are in for a rude awakening.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      DoJ: “My lord, is that… constitutional?”

      SCOTUS: “I will make it constitutional”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    797 months ago

    My 86-year old mother is house-bound but she is the daughter of two immigrants who came over in the 1910’s, so I guess she’s gonna be shipped off to another country. I have no idea if my brother and I, both in our 50’s would be subjected to deportation considering we haven’t lived with her in over 30 years.

    Maybe the US shouldn’t have elected an out-and-out racist asshole.

    • DacoTaco
      link
      fedilink
      97 months ago

      Congrats, nearly everyone in the written history of america are immigrants. Anyone after the declaration ? Gone! Immigrants from first and second world war? Gone! Good old usa! ( /s incase its not obvious)

    • Flying Squid
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      157 months ago

      I’m the child of an immigrant and a native-born person. So does half of my citizenship get taken away?

        • Flying Squid
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          117 months ago

          The lower half. I might lose my penis, but I get to keep my brain.

          Unless this is a vertical bisection of course. Then the left side because I’m left-handed.

          Although I wouldn’t have my right brain hemisphere anymore… Now I’m confused.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            87 months ago

            Trump opted to deport his brain and he’s going to be a 2 time president. May want to keep the penis.

            • Flying Squid
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              17 months ago

              I don’t know… It has already served its biological purpose and the brain’s got the pleasure center.

  • themeatbridge
    link
    fedilink
    37 months ago

    This piece of shit is just trying to get rid of his wife and unattractive children.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      27
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      No

      In other news, 34 criminal convictions by a unanimous jury (which is near impossible to win) doesn’t make you a criminal either apparently. You’re only a criminal if you’re related to Biden (and don’t worry, revenge porn by Marjorie is perfectly ok too)

      You could bring down the average conviction rate in the US simply by deporting Trump

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    497 months ago

    i wish everyone would get rid of the assumption that the constitution will protect you

    “that’s unconstitutional!!!” doesn’t mean jack shit anymore

    • WideEyedStupid
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I’ve noticed many Americans also talk about those ‘unalienable rights’ like it’s some law of nature. They’re not unalienable. Having rights is not a given. Ask many groups of people throughout history. You only have rights as long as others respect them. Where are your unalienable rights when you’re grabbed off the street in a black van and taken somewhere without anyone knowing? When your fellow citizens / your government decides you shouldn’t have them anymore? If rights were unalienable, why are they dependent on borders?

      Sometimes I think people feel too safe. Otherwise they wouldn’t accept others losing their rights so easily. They still think they won’t/can’t lose their own.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    12
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I’m a bit conflicted in this, because Canada has similar issues with this but it’s more “birth tourism” where people from various other countries come here for a limited time - have a child who is entitled to citizenship and all the benefits - and then leave. That child spend decades never setting foot in the country, but still be eligible for a passport, voting rights, and many other such things despite having no significant ties to the country, and neither parent being a citizen

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      377 months ago

      How is this an issue? How many people do you honestly go abroad explicitly to give birth there to gain the system?

      Sounds like you fell for yet another outrage clickbait. If 100 people do this, whatever. I rather have this than someone being born in a country and lives there their entire life but has no right of nationality there because their parents weren’t there for 5 years prior to their birth or whatever the fuck the law says.

      UK has no citizenship by birth type and it hurts way more people than could ever hope to abuse it.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        27 months ago

        Ah yes, the “outrage clickbait” that is a known issue and has been the subject of numerous studies by government and reputable institutions both pre and post pandemic.

        Guess we should send the border services agency a memo that it’s probably only a hundred people and they should remove it from the things they literally screen for, because some Internet genius is sure it’s nothing to worry about…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        77 months ago

        I looked it up there were 3,575 non-citizen births in Canada in 2023.

        I couldn’t find any numbers on how many were deliberate

        • Jyek
          link
          fedilink
          57 months ago

          So less than 1% of natural born Canadian citizens in 2023 were to non-citizen parents? Really send like it’s not that big of a deal at all

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            27 months ago

            If someone uproots their life to go and live in a different country and contribute paying more taxes than average family with zero safety nets? They earned it.

            People love to act like immigrants have it somehow easier… While they’re heavily discriminated at every step, pay extra for just about everything and come with less money moving in, no family house to fall back onto etc. The entitlement I’ve seen in my life disgusts me.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          27 months ago

          That’s also not counting the # of people that try and fail.

          Border services can turn back people who are pregnant and close to their end-date

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      97 months ago

      The rules do not apply to the rich. I think at this point he has made that clear over and over again.

  • Pyr
    link
    fedilink
    407 months ago

    Not sure how he plans on deporting people who were born in the United States and have no citizenship anywhere else since not every country automatically gives it to people’s children born abroad.

    They would effectively have no home country to deport them too.

      • Flying Squid
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        17 months ago

        They can’t do that unless Mexico agrees. They can’t just drive people down to San Diego and then shove them into Tijuana.

    • Ech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      He was already shocked Bahamas turned down his “offer” to send them deported people. I think it’s only a matter of time before they send a plane somewhere anyhow and get US flights promptly banned everywhere.

    • CurlyWurlies4All
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Hello. Australian here. Just ask our sadistic government. We do it all the time. Hint: It involves putting people in camps.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      67 months ago

      Even bigger question: what then?

      Say you deport a citizen of Mexican origin to Mexico. Can’t they just, you know, go back? They’re citizens, with a passport/id.

      The only alternative is to strip them (at least de facto) of their citizenship, which is literally a Hitler move (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_über_den_Widerruf_von_Einbürgerungen_und_die_Aberkennung_der_deutschen_Staatsangehörigkeit, only a German source, unfortunately).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 months ago

        You don’t even need to read the article. The title states quite clearly this is about citizenship not residence.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          27 months ago

          Which may be the end goal, use this as a wedge to convince their base that revoking citizenship may be justified in some cases.

      • Flying Squid
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        117 months ago

        Happened to my grandfather. A Jew born in Germany who emigrated to England in the late 1920s. I have his naturalisation papers from when he became a citizen of the UK in 1936 and his nationality is listed as “stateless.”

    • Flying Squid
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      437 months ago

      Meaning they will stay in the concentration camps until Trump’s Final Solution is implemented.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        147 months ago

        Slavery is much more economically viable than extermination. So, thank you capitalism, I think?

        • peopleproblems
          link
          fedilink
          187 months ago

          But you also have to keep slaves relatively healthy to maintain them working. If you slaves get too hungry, they can’t do whatever labor you make em do. If they get real sick, it’s going to affect your other slaves.

          And human slaves usually don’t put their heads down and do it forever. A lot of the Nazi labor camps massacred their captives because they started uprisings.

          There is nothing economically feasible with what they want. They just think they can do what they want and he even richer. Which is why you can look at the entirety of recorded human history for these same mistakes being repeated over and over again.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            67 months ago

            They also don’t seem to know or tend to forget that it only needs a relatively small percentage of the population to flat out resist for society to stop working. Only a few hundreds of thousands of protesters in East Germany brought the country to its knees and effectively ended the Cold War.

      • guldukat
        link
        fedilink
        07 months ago

        I should invest in corrections, sounds like a goldmine

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      You are missing out on a key component of their plan: concentration camps.

      He has outright said that he plans on using the same law that was used to justify the internment of Japanese citizens during WW2.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/texas-land-trump-mass-deportation-b2650813.html

      https://www.salon.com/2024/10/11/theyre-animals-vows-mass-deportation-under-law-used-to-justify-japanese-internment-camps/

      Literal concentration camps are coming.

    • SeaJ
      link
      fedilink
      17 months ago

      He doesn’t plan on shit. Even this Supreme Court would tell him to fuck off.

      • morriscox
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        17 months ago

        Given that the Supreme Court ruled that all official (who decides?) acts are legal, I have no faith in them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      37 months ago

      They would effectively become stateless. And how they do what from there depends a lot on where they are forcefully relocated to. Assuming the majority will be forced into Mexico, Mexico has an established legal process for accepting refugees. Through the application process, if approved, you (and your family unit) would gain permanent residency. It’s not the same as citizenship, but you could stay there indefinitely and have mostly the same rights as Mexican citizens. You might run into issues with getting passports and traveling internationally, but at the least, you would be able to stay in Mexico. That depends on your refugee application being approved, and I’d imagine when the numbers cross over into the millions their established system would break down a bit and there would probably be very long delays during which you could be deported.

      If it’s somewhere else, well, it varies widely. Most of the Caribbean islands have comparatively smaller populations and probably only handle migration on a small scale. It’s very hard to say how things would play out. Many would almost certainly be forced to illegally immigrate back into America.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    547 months ago

    It’s never going to stop surprising me when a politician says he’s going to do something, I tell people, and then he does it but so many people were still caught completely off guard. I imagine this is how many in the UK feel about Brexit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      167 months ago

      It’s unreal. Days after the election, people I work with were saying that Project 2025 was just propaganda and that he’s not actually going to do all the stuff he said he would do.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        87 months ago

        That’s my mother to a T. She defends all the batshit stuff he spews by saying it’s just a negotiating tactic to get to some “reasonable” compromise. Which may well be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that his opening bid is always something batshit insane and/or cruel, and that he would happily go through with it, if he were allowed to.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      267 months ago

      For real Brexit was a stunning result. I just remember this post results interview with same randoms about it and one of the yes voters was like “yea I just through it was never going to happen and voted yes as a laugh.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Deport them to where even mexico doesn’t want US Mexican Americans in their territory unless they get dual citizenship. He will need 2/3 votes of senate and the house to amend the US constitution. Orange man dumb asf!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    297 months ago

    This would be huge. Much like Europe, America’s population will decline. You need immigrants.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      47 months ago

      It’s not gonna happen. It would open up challenges to constitutional amendments that he and his supporters care about.

      • Jyek
        link
        fedilink
        77 months ago

        He doesn’t care about the constitution. Like not even a little. He has said as much when he called for the termination of the constitution in 2022.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          27 months ago

          Plenty of his supporters care about the 2nd amendment. Trump is extremely thin-skinned when it comes to his popularity and self-preservation.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      347 months ago

      Immigrants are the heart and soul of this country. I can’t even imagine wanting to live in whatever milquetoast, boring-ass, white bread America that these idiots want.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    287 months ago

    “Doesn’t the 14th Amendment pose a problem for that plan?”
    “Not a problem, no one handles amendments like me. 14 amendments is nothing, when I…when I do the Christ stuff before food I do 15, 30, 100 amendments. And people say ‘Wow, you are so good with the amendments, no one does the amendments like you.’ So I got that all taken care of.”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      27 months ago

      The Supreme Court in historically (and I can only imagine the current court will be the worst so far) has never been able to count to 14 much less interperate it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      87 months ago

      He actually already opened an office to review and attempt to take away citizenship from people who already earned it, back in 2020.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    57 months ago

    Okay, we don’t need to go adding extra stupid stuff. At the base level you’re doing their normalization for them. At the high level we need an accurate idea of what’s coming so we can prepare.

    Watching the actual interview it’s clear he makes some assertions. They don’t want to separate families so they will send the US citizens with the family if the family wants. What this generally means is when the parents are undocumented but a kid is a citizen. This interview does not support denaturalizing people, (but he did do that in his first term), or forcing American citizens in a mixed status family who are adults to leave.

    On the 14th the interviewer wanted and got an answer from an 80 year old partially senile man. His first, natural answer to the 14th amendment question was he would go to the people. He only noncommittally said he would look at an EO when then interviewer kept asking him but what about an executive order. If he’s mentioned doing that before the proper way is to bring up what he said before and see if he still holds that position. Not repeating, “but what about an EO” 5 times until you get the funny and the headline writers can celebrate.

    The open question is how will this highly suggestable man fare around the likes of Stephen Miller.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      07 months ago

      I enjoy the notion that they would argue that undocumented immigrants are not subject to US law in the fashion that diplomats aren’t subject to US law, since that would effectively prevent anything except deportation as a punishment for crimes.
      “Your children can’t be citizens, but you can murder with impunity until we ask you to leave”.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      67 months ago

      I concur with your interpretation. But as for your final line, I’m not sure why this interpretation is unfortunate. We need to streamline and overhaul the immigration process for sure, but why is encouraging unregulated immigration a good thing?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      17 months ago

      More likely, a lower court shoots it down, and there’s no basis for an appeals court to do anything different. They tweak it and try again. That one also fails. Try again.

      Eventually, they get something that threads the needle. This is how the “Muslim ban” went.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          There are two other factors at work:

          • A bunch of conservative-related businesses know what a clusterfuck it will be for their bottom line; that will push the Supreme Court to pretend there’s no issue here
          • The Supreme Court can only take so many cases at a time

          Even if we assume they’re just going to bypass the usual ladder up the federal court system, they can’t do that on everything just as a practical matter.