I’d like to pay a reporter to ask Trump how it feels to wipe his ass with the Constitution. I’d think it would be coarse and unpleasant, but he keeps doing it.
Ill just stick with Charmin or whatever.
Trump will then happily show his new line of merchandise. One is his “We The People” line of toilet paper. There’s also his “Smooth Criminal” line, extra soft toilet paper with the entire criminal law printed on it.
Wait … Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?
It’s either where you’re born or where you live. Which is it?
Wtf even is citizenship then?
“I’m from Ireland” is synonymous with “I’m Irish”… Right?
So if you’re born in America, wouldn’t you… Be American?
If he takes that away, you aren’t just magically from nowhere, you’re still American.
This is stupid and makes no sense, it’s all just classism and racism. I hate everything.
Its the same as the election between Obama and McCain, in ways a lot of people dont realize.
Obama, by virtue of having a non-traditional name and not being white, was hounded by birthers despite being born an American citizen clear as day with absolutely no question about it.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone the year before people born in the canal zone were granted citizenship at birth. Arguably he was not a citizen at birth under the definitional requirements of the constitution to be president. He was naturalized as a citizen retroactively.
Palin is part native, and was pretty heavily involved with Alaska Native movements that rejected US sovereignty and thereby rejected claims to citizenship. But no one talked about that either because shes also largely seen as just being a white American.
And yet Obama, who was American thru and thru from birth without question, never was involved with Hawaiian sovereignty movements, is the one whos citizenship was questioned.
“White makes right” is the rule of law to these people
Sounds about white.
Ted Cruz ran in the Republican presidential primary despite being an Albertan
The thing about ending birthright citizenship is that it would just create a stateless individual. Where would they even deport children of undocumented immigrants to? Are they going to make an El Salvadorian gulag for them too?
The former SCOTUS ruling on the 14th amendment was really clear - if you are born here, you are a citizen regardless of your parent’s legal immigration status. I don’t understand why the SCOTUS is even bothering to hear this case when even a constitutional literalist would have difficulty trying to weasel-word their way into a ruling that supports the Republican position on this one.
I can thing of few things more cruel than a state that looks at a literal child who was born here, lived here all their lives, speaks the language, attends school, has friends and family and a support structure and would otherwise be indistinguishable from any other American child born to American-born parents, and deport them to a country they’ve never set foot in for no real discernible reason other than they are anti-immigrant racists.
So when someone has tried to rationalize ending birthright citizenship, they fixate in the “and subject to the jusrisdiction”.
So they argue that a child born to parents who are citizens elsewhere are subject to the jurisdiction of the parents country of origin. To make this leap they say that language matching the intent should have been “and exclusively subject to the jurisdiction”. Or else they might claim it can only apply to parents legally in the country, but that didn’t let them block visa holders like they would want.
So technically it shouldn’t still be able to make stateless individuals even with their rationalization, but that is of no comfort in any practical terms.
You’ve just given it ten times more thought than the Trump team has.
Furthermore aren’t, at least some of, his kids from ? The youngest psychopath is definitely of imported genetics, does that mean the next oppositional president (ha, like Fatboy is ever going to let go of all that power now he’s king of the us) could kick all tRUMPs offspring out?
Most people are citizens of where they also live and give birth so this distinction doesn’t come up in most cases. But for children born to immigrants or travelers it does.
Citizenship can either be assigned by where you were born, or who you were born to.
Birthright citizenship, as we use the term in the US, is mostly a new world invention. In nearly all countries in the americas, any children born here are citizens without exception. No matter the parents, no matter the circumstances.
In the old world, most countries require a parent to be a citizen in order for the child to also be a citizen.
Generally if an american couple gives birth in Europe, the child will just be american, despite where they were born. If a European couple gives birth in any of the americas, their child will be a citizen of the americas, despite anything else
Doesn’t “citizenship” mean where you’re born?
Only in the new world continents. In Africa, Europe, and Asia it normally means what country your parents and grandparents are from, unless someone in the chain naturalises to a different country.
Yup, and when you don’t have any citizenship, you’re stateless. It causes a lot of issues internationally, because a stateless person can’t have a passport, can’t immigrate, can’t hold a legal job because they can’t get a work visa without a passport, etc… Notably, the US is one of the few countries that refused to sign on with the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Basically, the convention would prevent a country from revoking someone’s citizenship if they don’t have a valid claim elsewhere. And the US refused to sign.
You operate under the assumption that this is a public service. That would make no sense.
But if the assumption is them accumulating more power, then it makes perfect sense.
To be honest I get more mad at people being surprised by their actions. At this point it is so obvious what is happening and why. How can anyone be surprised by any of this?
“Why does this rabid dog bites? How does this make for a better world?”
It is a rabid dog, how could you ever expect something positive to begin with? Put it down already. You don’t argue with crazy.
rabbit dog
Can the supreme court just straight up ignore the constitution, under the constitution?
Surely no, right?
Sure. But who can enforce that?
Only the Congress, by impeachment. But the Congressional majority is fine with dismantling checks and balances and nullifying whole swaths of the Constitution that protect our rights.
Theoretically they are supposed to have an adversarial relationship with the Congress and the president, but…
I hate how we (Australia) are so closely tied to a country that is speed-running the late Roman republic.
It’s all there, a “democratic” system run by the wealthy, for the wealthy, physical intimidation of voters and politicians, a rigged voting system, ignoring the law for the benefit of a populist leader promising to deliver the masses from the corrupt establishment.
How many times per day does your boyfriend think of the Roman Empire?
Recently, surely dozens
At least you folks got a damn ocean between you and that insanity. We Canadians are just right fucked.
Sounds like you need to hire Bugs Bunny to resolve the issue.
Moron is literally BEGGING
deleted by creator
So literally what happened here is Trump said, “I want to violate the Constitution” and the Supreme Court said, " Okay — go ahead."
And that’s it for the rule of law in the US.
All that’s left now is to tally the mass murders along the way to the inevitable collapse of the US, and to hope that our descendents can build something better out of the rubble.
The US collapsing is going to absolutely affect the rest of the world. This is very VERY bad.
That’s not literally what happened at all. Trump said, “I want to violate the constitution and issued an order”. Then states cities and organizations sued across three cases and courts issued universal injunctions. Trump said “wah! Help me puppet kourt!” Then the Supreme Court was like, “be still mein führer. We will not allow these injunctions to apply to the entire nation. Only to those who have sued.”
They gave him second base. Let’s see if they go all the way for Don Don.
I’m not a USer so correct me if wrong here, but is the implication then that something can be considered constitutional in one state but not in another? How does that work?
Yup. That’s how it is currently. Doesn’t have to be state by state either. Even more granular. Individuals who file suit and win can be immune to it, but other in the same state who have not filed suit could be vulnerable to it. The Supreme Court has yet to make a ruling on whether the order is unconstitutional or not.
No. The core issue has not been decided. When courts in one state rule differently from courts in another, it goes up to federal court. When federal courts in different circuits rule differently, it goes up to SCOTUS. This issue isn’t at that point just yet.
It doesn’t. The ruling makes little sense and is just showing that playing the game with absolutely no ethics works very well.
This title isn’t true. The court has not “given the OK”
Right, they only said “nobody can stop you from doing illegal things.”
Completely different.
That’s not true either. The people who filed suit can stop him, but not for the entire nation.
It was about whether or not a federal court can issue a nationwide injunction.
The verdict has much more to do with active cases of deportees suing the US than it does to do with birthright citizenship.
This is technically true, but it’s also wrong.
Yes, they didn’t technically rule on birthright citizenship, but it doesn’t matter. Without national injunctions, your right to birthright citizenship doesn’t actually exist as a practical matter.
By the time you can file your individual case challenging the revocation of your citizenship, you’ll already be in an ICE concentration camp. And you don’t have a right to an attorney during immigration proceedings.
The supreme court did give the ok saying that it comes down to states and individuals to stop it.
That isn’t true. That is what sensationalist headlines said the verdict was. The verdict had nothing to do with birthright citizenship.
We desperately need media literacy training as a species.
Edit: go no further. There is nothing of value beyond this point. You’re welcome.
Start media literacy training by never citing YouTube videos as sources. It’s far better to learn to read.
The word for learning to read books is literacy.
I was talking specifically about learning to read things that are not books.
It is true. It’s not a ruling on birthright citizenship but it does stop the injunction against it.
Edit to explain because I doubt you grasp: Without the injunction he’s free to act on a birthright citizenship ban unless sued by individuals or states on the behalf of said individuals. So over 20 states have no limit to this executive order pausing the deportation of people born in the US because they haven’t sued the federal government for breaking the 14th amendment.
If anything this is far worse than just birthright citizenship because Trump can write executive orders far faster than lawsuits can be brought against the administration and lower federal courts can’t file injunctions against the administration, states or individuals have to sue.
Again: The supreme court did give the ok, saying that it comes down to states and individuals to stop it because it removed the lower courts’ ability to file injunctions.
Because you doubt I’ll grasp… Why?
You’re the one who ate up the sensationalistic news headlines and regurgitated them like a good little boy?
I’m not going to read the content of your response because you open with inflammatory bullshit. Grow up.
Tagged as “fucking douche.”
Ohh your feelings hurt because everyone downvoted you. Cool, take it out on me. That’s the Hallmark of someone to take seriously in conversation.
Because you doubt I’ll grasp… Why?
I’m not going to read
Heh
Got it, no response.
Cheers, blocked.
This is just cope. They did give the OK. They didn’t technically say he could revoke birthright citizenship, but they removed the ability for people to effectively challenge the revocation of their citizenship. If you can’t actually exercise your rights, then your rights don’t exist.
But keep huffing the copium.
Please explain how they removed the ability to challenge it.
Also, they are still going to make a decision. Just haven’t done it yet.
Please explain your current understanding of the ruling in full before you ask others for lengthy explanations.
I asked you first. So annoying.
Here ya go: The ruling is against universal injunctions. Any existing injunctions stay and any future plaintiffs can block the order as well. It just can’t be stopped across the country from any existing or future rulings. Unless of course the Supreme Court ends up saying it’s unconstitutional.
Your turn.
And you don’t see the blindingly obvious problems with that, the issues that have been repeatedly pointed out in dozens of articles on the subject? I’m sorry, but you just aren’t operating in good faith. You’re either willfully ignoring those issues, or you are demanding others do your homework for you.
So you don’t have an answer to my question? Sounds like you’re the one operating blindly. Just saying things.
No, I just don’t suffer fools.
this is insane
We’re at a point where imo the only way to fix things here is captial C and captial D Civil Disobedience. At risk of getting put on a list and deported or smth I’m not gonna go into specifics but I’m sure you can figure out what I’m getting at.
So… He’s goin to deport Baron Trump then, right?
I’m all for deporting all of the Trumps, but technically he has citizenship because of his terrible father, regardless of birth location or his mother’s citizenship status.
No we should deport the Trumps. I’m sure we can find some minor error or omission in his father’s old citizenship application. Do what they’re doing - go back up the family tree, declare their ancestor’s citizenship fraudulent, and deport their whole rotten family tree.
Where in the Constitution do we spell out that citizenship is granted to a child on the basis of the status of the father, regardless of birth location or their mother’s status?
Human rights are officially a thing of the past. None of us qualify for citizenship if he removes that definition.
Birthright citizenship is not a human right. It’s pretty much only a thing in North and South America.
You can say a lot of things. But proclaiming it as a loss of human rights is not it.
Human rights are those required for human dignity and flourishing not those which are universally possessed in a world full of distress and toil.
Freedom of speech is one such commonly understood but often denied. For instance if the content of your speech can see someone removed from the land of their birth to one where they are stateless and homeless what other rights do they possess?
I don’t think birthright citizenship qualifies as a “human right” - most countries that (officially) care more about “human rights” than USA does doesn’t have that. Whether it should be removed or not is not for me to say, however. It’s a switch away from what it has genuinely mesnt to be an American.
Not having birthright citizenship doesn’t (necesarilly) mean the newborn wouldn’t have any citizenship at all
There are many birthright citizens of all ages not just infants. They would instantly become homeless and destitute in a country where they may not speak the language and have no proof of citizenship even if they may eventually have some due to them eventually.
Furthermore this is a vehicle to deny them other human rights by selectively removing people who are entitled by our constitution to citizenship for speaking against the government.
Right of redress assembly speech to be secure in their person , and to be subject to the law not a ruler are all important rights herein denied.
You are still not allowed to make someone stateless. That has not changed.
You seem to be confused as to what human rights actually are, rather than what you want them to be. I suggest you look at the wiki page.
How would this result in anyone being stateless? You do realize people still inherit the citizenship of their parents right?
I’m not saying it is. And yes. I am aware of that. I’ve been mentioning it plenty of times in this post already.
deleted by creator
Why would I define human rights by virtue of what a wiki says today?
Ok… but you are aware that the UN have set actual Human Rights?
Why on earth do you think not being listed in a particular document makes something not a human right
Because it’s factually not a Human Right?
Your opinion of what you want them to be. Doesn’t make it so.
You have the right to a nationality. (Article 15) How you get one is up to each country. Most grant you one from either of your parents. Not the location you were born.
It pretty much is a loss of human rights indirectly, though. Losing birthright citizenship essentially means going through whatever processes he wants to become a citizen and gain the benefits of citizenship (voting, social programs, etc.). It also means he can use it as an excuse to deport whoever, which has usually ended up involved stripped those deported of their rights.
It is basically the only form of citizenship in the USA, and since only citizens rights are respected by laws, meaning nobody has any guaranteed rights at all.
You’re arguing that people don’t have the right to live where they were born and have lived their entire lives.
If that’s not a human right, than basically nothing is.Also, “only” north and south america? That’s not a trivial portion of the world that you can just “only” away.
I’m not arguing anything. I’m informing you of what the reality is.
33 countries have it. All but two are in Americas.
The rest have citizenship inherited from your parents. Meaning. Even if I was born in Portugal. It wouldn’t make me a Portugeese citizen. I would still be a Swedish citizen. Since my parents are.
“I’m not arguing anything” they say, arguing that it’s not a human right.
Get the fuck out of here with your double think.
Portugal and Sweden not respecting a human right doesn’t make it not a human right. Given how gleefully so much of Europe seems to be to deny people who have lived in the country for generations citizenship, to restrict their freedom or religion, or to just watch them fucking drown, I’m not super keen for the US to use Europe as a role model for human rights regarding citizenship.Again, if taking someone from the only home they’ve ever known to live someplace they’ve never been, don’t speak the language, and have no citizenship isn’t a human rights violation, then nothing that matters is.
I don’t give a shit if Sweden says it’s fine.Most of the world is blood right citizenship, you inherit it from your parents. Which is actually helpful if abroad on a trip and you get born you automatically get citizenship of where your parents normally would reside as a citizen, The person you were commenting on is correct, human rights has nothing to do with sovereign nations laws on who becomes a citizen. Its not a right as a human to take on the citizenship based on the continent and boundaries you live in because countries are a construct. Think back to all the border changes in places like prewar Germany. Your border could change, it doesn’t change what country “you belong to”. American having Birthright sort of made sense because it was the " new world " at the time.
By no means do I support what USA admin is doing, they are absolute assholes. But not liking it doesn’t make it a human rights violation
The freedom to not be kicked out of your home and sent to a foreign land because of who your parents happened to be is as much a right or construct as the right to speech, belief, or any other codified right.
Hence why if that’s not a right, then there are really none of significance.Rights are not bestowed by governments, international declarations, or treaties.
Arguing that a sovereign nations laws contradicting something makes it not a human right is a powerfully slippery slope.
The rights of people matter more than those of nations.
Rights are bestowed by governments though. We have moved passed roaming the land and setting up a homestead wherever you like, we now have governments that scribe boundaries and zone land, it is no longer “freedom”. If you are worried about citizenship and your parents move it is on them to pursue PR and then citizenship, then the same for their children.
You’re either willfully being ignorant. Or just lack fundamental understanding of what Human Rights are. It’s something set by the UN.
Birthright Citizenship is not included. Period. It is not a Human Right to be a citizen in the country you’re born.
You can have the opinion that it should be. But it is in fact not.
Most countries. As in, all of them except 33. Have it so you get citizenship from either or both of your parents.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
I think it’s telling that you only consider something a human right if there’s a law protecting it.
Do you think there were no human rights before 1948?The universal declaration on human rights is the set of rights that a good number of nations could agree on. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not an exhaustive or definitive list.
Before you start accusing people of ignorance or being intentionally obtuse, you might consider that you’re actually full of shit on the concept of morality.
There was no consensus on what should be global human rights before 1948 that is correct.
Before that, the only rights you had, were the ones afforded to you by your lord, king, queen, emperor, president, prime minister, etc. For a very long time, all over the world. A lot of people had, literally. No rights at all. They were used, sold, worked, as slaves.
So it’s a wonderful thing that a bunch of countries came together and tried their best to determine some basic Human Rights that everyone should adhere to. Being afforded citizenship of the country you’re currently inside at the time of birth. Is not one of them.
If you ever bothered to actually look into them. You might find article 15 of interest.
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality
You have the Human Right to belong to a nation. But it does not stipulate which nation. Nor how you acquire the nationality. Some countries have it as the place where you were physically born. Others have it as an extension of your parents nationality.
I could explain this further if you so wish. But I doubt you’d care for it. In any case. What you personally think should and shouldn’t be a human right, won’t change the status of the actual Human Rights. Just like what you personally think should and shouldn’t be legal in your country, won’t change the status of the laws currently put in place.
I think it’s telling that you only consider something a human right if there’s a law protecting it.
Yeah. The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution plainly says that there are more rights than are enumerated.
It is not the UN’s domain to determine human rights. It’s its job to recognize and (ideally) to promote and protect them. And it’s not wonderfully effective at that part of its job.
I agree that UN is not wonderfully effective at enforcing Human Rights. That is fair and valid criticism. I don’t think they’re very good at enforcing anything to be honest.
You may have the opinion that it shouldn’t be in the UN’s domain to determine Human Rights. But matter of fact is. The Declaration of Human Rights is something the UN made. They did determine them. It has already happened. I strongly advise everyone to go and read them. You will probably find that everything you wish was there, is actually in there. There are a total of 30 articles. So it’s not a particularly long read.
The rest have citizenship inherited from your parents.
And most of them have expedited rules for naturalization of children born in the country to parents who are there legally. One exception I know about is Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf countries, where it’s nearly impossible to get citizenship if your father isn’t a citizen.
What people like you tend to forget, is that most countries (at least European countries that I know of), might not grant birth citizenship, but do grant citizenship by marriage, as soon as you marry someone from the country, you can apply for citizenship, meanwhile you can spend 40 years married to an american, living in the country and having 5 kids, and still not be considered american… That only happens there.
It is a human right, just not one that is universally respected.
Having a nationality is a Human Right. Being afforded nationality in the country you were born in, isn’t.
A common example are couples working abroad. They might give birth abroad, but that doesn’t mean their child will automatically be a citizen of that country. Because the vast majority of countries does not grant citizenship for just being born there. You get citizenship if one of your parents is a citizen.
The problem is that birth right citizenship is in the constitution. So if Trump can get rid of that, he can get ignore the Bill of Rights as well.
EDIT: Also basically every country has birthright citizenship usually be having a citizen as a parent. What is different in the Americas is jus soli, so being born in the country making you a citizen.
That’s exactly the difference that Trump is harping on
deleted by creator
No. Basically every country does NOT have birthright citizenship. If I was born in Spain, that would not make me a Spanish citizen. Since neither of my parents are Spanish citizens.
I would get citizenship from my parents. Not from the location I was born.
Edit: ok I see now what you mean with “birthright citizenship”. But that’s not the term used elsewhere. Yes. Everyone born has the right to a citizenship. But since we cannot be made stateless… you will never end up born without it.
If you end birthright citizenship, then nobody gets to be a citizen by birth. If you can’t be a citizen by birth, the only way to become a citizen is naturalization. If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
deleted by creator
The alternative to birthright is blood right or inheritance right.
Which is a right based on your conditions of birth, and therefore a form of birthright citizenship. Both Jus Sanguinis and Jus Solis are forms of birthright citizenship.
This was initially what was Donald’s EO and such, but blue states (of course) noticed he fucked up (imagine having so much money and you can’t have a better team looking over your shit), that they had to change it.
Now it states that parents in the US legally can have a kid and it will be a citizen. But not parents who’s here visiting and such. But what if a mom is an illegal and dad is legal? What would the kid be?
But what if a mom is an illegal and dad is legal? What would the kid be?
How brown is their skin?
If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.
What do they think America is founded on?
A bunch of religous people who were welcomed into multiple countries but then got mad that everyone around them didn’t belive in their exact same religon they did so they found a new place and committed some genocide before building up a mythology about how they had to do it in order to flee religious persecution?
A mix of first generation immigrants, 2nd generation, 3rd generation, 4th generation, a few remaining natives.
100% first generation immigrants would be a major shift.
And if immigrants don’t need due process and can be sent to concentration camps then it’s really easy to make anyone disappear
If immigrants don’t get due process, then nobody gets due process.
You could arrest Bill Clinton and claim he’s an immigrant. If that means he doesn’t get due process, he can never prove he’s not an immigrant, and so he’s stuck in Guantanamo forever.
Boston witch hunt all over again.
That’s pretty much the plan imo
It’s just the title, it even says in the article he would move forward with trying to redefine the 14th amendment. Basically it’ll be if your parents are citizens, and your born here, you’ll be a citizen. (My best guess)
I see, so he wants to change it to what it is already? Makes sense.
No, right now if your parents aren’t citizens, and you are born here, you become a citizen. Say you come on a student visa, get pregnant your junior year and drop out of college to take care of your baby and try to figure out a life, the baby is a U.S. citizen. Very clearly as you can see that mother and child are a huge risk to national security. A person going to work and paying taxes while raising a kid and helping with the birthrate decline they supposedly care about is something we just can’t have.
That student is the the worst of the worst criminal.
The only moral way to fix the falling birthrate is to outlaw contraception and abortion, increase economic desperation to create a surge of underemployed young men, and increase the amount of anti-woman rhetoric and policy in popular culture and government.
You see, an increase in unemployment leads to an increase in baseline crime statistics, and an increase in dehumanizing and hateful attitudes towards women increases the rate of rape, which is now harder to prosecute. Devoid of any options, the birth rate rises and in many cases women are forced by implicit circumstances to limit their lives in ways they would not otherwise choose.
It’s a tactic explored by the Romanians, but it didn’t pan out. Clearly they allowed too many exceptions for maternal well-being, birth defects, rape and incest.Exactly, then you outlaw homelessness and deplete protection programs. This will ensure we can fill privately owned and operated prisons and use their labor to work the low paying jobs at a vastly lower pay.
Note from the article below. They claim “some of the most violent prisons” yet some of them are allowed to work 40 hours and some go home for the weekend to stay unsupervised. That doesn’t sound like a very dangerous person… In fact why are they holding them at all. Commute their sentence to probation at that point and let them get paid the actual wage. It would decrease our prison costs, while increasing taxes paid to the government and economic gains. We need to rework the prison systems to rehabilitation with much earlier releases if they are deemed safe to be working around the non incarcerated population. After all they are only supposed to be locked up because they are “a threat” to to the non incarcerated population.
And yes, that chart says the highest minimum wage is .35 cents and hour for incarcerated people. 5% of the federal minimum wage that is unlivable… meaning they can’t make anywhere near the money they need to save up for a roof and transportation to a job if they can find one when they get out. Throw in that many prisons charge inmates for being there… They have debt when they get out they need to pay off, so their credit will likely be shot.
I’m curious if this means that certain cities or states will become citizenship havens because their local courts decided to provide injunctions for their jurisdiction.
Probably not. I expect once the cases advance, SCOTUS will pick it up again fairly soon.
First ones to be deported should be melania and baron
Jr, Ivanka, and Eric would also be removed. Tiffany is the only “true” American.
Donald J, “Who?”
So like every country in Europe, got it.
Change the constitution then. It’s crystal clear. We don’t live in a vibe democracy. You don’t jut get to pick and choose what laws you get to follow if you want to be a nation of laws at all.
Europe isn’t the Americas. Nearly every country in the Americas has birthright citizenship. Your nation is an outlier in the Western Hemisphere if it doesn’t have birthright citizenship. In any country composed of large settler populations, birthright citizenship is essential to preventing the formation of a slave caste. If you lack it, you inevitably end up with multi-generational illegal immigrant communities, which end up forming a slave caste of exploitable labor.
I for one oppose the creation of a slave caste, so I am in favor of birthright citizenship.
I appreciate what you’re saying, but wouldn’t one way to solve that problem be to remove folks who aren’t here legally? I don’t like Trump or his policies, but what he’s doing, as horrible as it is, seems to rectify the situation of having a slave caste. In fact, I see articles posted here all the time talking about how they can’t find people to work farms. It’s obviously created other problems, but they’re kind of irrelevant for this discussion.
I don’t know how the US can’t function the same way as a European nation just because it’s geographically across an ocean. I do agree with you that it shakes out that way, but I’m not sure why where the US is plays a role. How long does the US need to wait to not be composed of large settler populations?
Honest question here too because I appreciate your viewpoint, and I just know there’s a lot of folks across the pond who are quick to say America bad, and then America adjusts it’s tack to perform the same way as those countries, and I hear no, not like that.
What you’re apparently too blind to see is that Trump doesn’t deport illegal immigrants - he MAKES illegal immigrants. He’s turning legal immigrants into illegal immigrants by revoking their immigration status. And he wants to do the same to born US citizens.
And you can try to breeze away the problems of lacking birthright citizenship with your hypothetical, but it’s just that, a hypothetical. Meanwhile, in actual history, when you don’t have something like birthright citizenship, you DO end up with a multigenerational slave caste. You can never remove everyone as business interests don’t actually want the undocumented population removed. They just want them in hiding and in fear so they can exploit their labor.
The US also has along history of not granting full citizenship to large swathes of its population. We had widespread chattel slavery. We had Jim Crow. We still have prison slavery. We have a long history of our worst people trying to deliberately engineer a class of people who don’t fully count as human and can thus become cheap exploitable labor. That’s why we need a hard rule that says, “fuck you, you asshat politician. Everyone born here is a citizen, full stop.”
Europe is hardly a model to emulate. Many European countries have just the type of slave caste I’m talking about - unassimilated groups of immigrants that have been there for generations yet still lack citizenship.
If you were born here, you deserve to be a citizen. Your very physical being is formed from the air, the water, and the food of this land. Anyone born in America is an American, and any US politician who refuses this truth deserves to be hanged for treason against the Republic. Trump literally deserves to be hanged for this. That is not an exaggeration or hyperbole. He literally deserves to die for this. In a just world, he would be tried and executed for his betrayal of this fundamental American value. He has committed treason against the Republic.
So your saying you would support if they updated it to, everyone who is here as of Jan 1st, 2026 (or whenever it passed) is legally a citizen whether or not they were in the naturalization process, and only their decendents can get birthright citizenships. (And all future citizens who get naturalized by sponsorship)
I could be fine with that IF every workplace is mandated to sponsor every person they hire on a work visa. If they are caught hiding that they hired a worker the company is dissolved and the owners/executives get life in prison. All student Visa’s allowed a fast tract acceptance to a work visa while attending school or a period of forebearance while it processes if applied for within 90 days of leaving the educational institution.
Asylum applications need to be updated to NOT require the person to be on U.S. soil and made accessible online. If a person applies for asylum and any personal information down to just giving a name is leaked by any member of our government or institutions set to minotor/run those applications, the penalty is life in prison.
Of all the things European countries do, that’s the one you like?
