4 ms·
Quote >On his first day in office this year, he signed an executive order declaring that babies born in the U.S. may not be citizens if their parents were not
by rawgabbit 1y ago
Quote
>On his first day in office this year, he signed an executive order declaring that babies born in the U.S. may not be citizens if their parents were not here legally or if the parents were here legally but on a temporary basis like a work visa.
Does this mean for workers in the US on the H1B visa, their children who are born in the US will no longer automatically be US citizens?
- breakyerself 1y agoIt's not a great sign that the supreme Court didn't uphold the injunctions, but I still have some hope that even this almost worthless supreme Court would overrule such a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.
- rkagerer 1y agoHow long do you think it will take for a case with the meat of the matter to work its way to a Supreme Court decision? I heard there were multiple suits filed within days of the order being signed; which one is closest?
- breakyerself 1y agoI wish I could tell you. There was something in the injunctions requiring some kind of relief for the specific parties in the cases so it seems like they're trying to avoid taking it head on.
- stego-tech 1y agoThat’s the gist, yes, at least initially. It never stops at a given category of person, though, and you can assume next steps would be to set arbitrary milestones and dates around who is and is not a citizen based on birthright. Picture the glut of immigrants in the 1800 and 1900s who never got proper citizenship, or only had permanent residency. You can bet that the next step would be to say if you can’t point to a US Citizen direct ancestor after a given year, you’re no longer a citizen yourself. That’s why revocation through Executive Order alone is so dangerous: its intent isn’t merely to get all undesirables today, but all undesirables ever, no matter what the definition of “undesirable” is.
- throwaway48476 1y agoSome of us can trace ancestry to service in the revolutionary war.
- jfengel 1y agoI can't. My family has been here for only about five generations. Probably legally, but I doubt I can prove that. Bye.
- baseballdork 1y agoDoes this make you more of a citizen than literally any other? It shouldn't.
- readthenotes1 1y agoIt means I still have an advantage because my ancestors did not manage to completely squander the land grants given as a result of that service... Does it mean that the lady I met last year who flew from Brazil to have her babies in the US did a right thing? That's the question for the court
- throwaway48476 1y agoDual citizens have somewhere else to go when the ship sinks. They're never going to be as invested in the future of the country as those who don't.
- HaZeust 1y agoWho said dual citizenship is on the table for most of the folks affected by these proceedings? For many people, this WILL be home. Why will some H1B visa kid give a shit about Iran, Venezuela or Mexico when one of his parents are from any of those places - and THEY aren't?
- throwaway48476 1y agoPeople don't lose their parents citizenship anymore because record keeping is much better now. My ancestors probably arrived in the 1720s but the British burned the census records during the revolution. This doesn't happen anymore. As for dual citizens they were all waving Mexican flags during the LA protests. They wouldn't if they didn't give a shit.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- reverendsteveii 1y agoAs of right now it means they can still be kidnapped and deported while we figure out what that means.