General Discussion

dsc

(52,769 posts)

16. actually the argument isn't that the infants aren't under the jurisdiction but that the parents aren't

Mon Jan 20, 2025, 12:48 PM

Jan 20

which could wind up creating a whole new line of immunity for them. The people who didn't count at the time of that amendment were diplomats and native Americans who didn't get citizenship until the early 20th century. Diplomats have immunity from all criminal and civil laws while in the US and at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified, Native Americans were governed on reservations. It seems to me that the only way that argument can hold water is if the only punishment for a crime committed by an undocumented alien were deportation.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can he really end birthright citizenship? Isn't it up to Congress? [View all] question everything Jan 20 OP

All of this will be litigated for a while newdeal2 Jan 20 #1

His congress will pass whatever he wants. MLAA Jan 20 #2

It's a Constitutional Amendment, so it should require another amendment to reverse. hedda_foil Jan 20 #3

I don't think Jilly_in_VA Jan 20 #23

I hope you're right about that. nt Frank D. Lincoln Jan 20 #27

They wiped out the 14th A before. carpetbagger Jan 20 #29

They can just interpret a phrase or two in a different way. Igel Jan 20 #30

they could mis/reinterpret "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Orangepeel Jan 20 #35

Ratification requires 3/4 of the states AFTER an wnylib Jan 20 #42

So that means Donnie's anchor babies all have to go, right? Blue_Tires Jan 20 #4

So do naturalized citizens. The 14th Amendment also establishes that they are citizens. rsdsharp Jan 20 #14

And Musk's? how many does he have, a dozen? question everything Jan 20 #19

My parents were not citizens when moonscape Jan 20 #36

Congress can only changebit with an Amendment. Happy Hoosier Jan 20 #5

I would not think so.. because it is in the Constitution.. 14th amendment Peacetrain Jan 20 #6

The RW SCOTUS will try and use this part: Celerity Jan 20 #13

This is exactly what they will use Amishman Jan 20 #25

Congress plus 2/3 of the states dpibel Jan 20 #7

3/4 of the states. cloudbase Jan 20 #11

Thanks dpibel Jan 20 #21

actually the argument isn't that the infants aren't under the jurisdiction but that the parents aren't dsc Jan 20 #16

I thought he needed to push through a constitutional amendment, which Vogon_Glory Jan 20 #8

ACLU, and other will file suits immediately, and it will take years to litigate. But in meantime, trump can say he Silent Type Jan 20 #9

No he can't. It's in the Constitution. Wiz Imp Jan 20 #10

Well, look at some of the fuckheads in Congress now. Initech Jan 20 #12

The only way to end birthright citizenship VMA131Marine Jan 20 #15

Court can just say no retroactivity dpibel Jan 20 #22

Trump wants to deport people already here VMA131Marine Jan 20 #33

ha ha ha. Left up to Congress? Irish_Dem Jan 20 #17

No, and he can't legally do most of what he's proposing. GoCubsGo Jan 20 #18

As with the 2017 Muslim ban, he will defy the Constitution and then yield what ground the courts force him to. Eugene Jan 20 #20

What about Jilly_in_VA Jan 20 #24

Birthright citizenship is in the U.S. constitution GoreWon2000 Jan 20 #26

Anything he wants EarthAbides Jan 20 #28

SCOTUS can ignore the plain language of the Amendment. DemocratSinceBirth Jan 20 #31

Not just the language of the 14A VMA131Marine Jan 20 #34

I don't believe they will but precedent hasn't stopped them in the past. DemocratSinceBirth Jan 20 #37

How do you undo the precedent without VMA131Marine Jan 20 #39

His Executive Order would be proactive, not retroactive. DemocratSinceBirth Jan 20 #40

You are making a big assumption there VMA131Marine Jan 20 #41

If he can't, it will be Obama's or Bidens fault. Win - Win LiberalArkie Jan 20 #32

At this point, I suspect that SCOTUS Bettie Jan 20 #38

The whole idea is to get this into the federal courts. totodeinhere Jan 20 #43