3 ms·
We know the current supreme court will end this. But the big question is how will this be enforced ? What happens if the parents became citizens after their c
by jmclnx 11mo ago
We know the current supreme court will end this.
But the big question is how will this be enforced ?
What happens if the parents became citizens after their children were born. Will the children be deemed non-US ?
Also I know many people who's children were born in the US but parents were from Ireland and not US citizens. Either on a tourist visa or work visa or undocumented. Some kids have been here for over 50 years.
Will this only be enforced if the child has the "wrong" skin color ? That is what I expect.
- Ancapistani 11mo agoIt's extremely uncommon for the court to issue an opinion with such large repercussions. Even if birthright citizenship is overturned (which I find very unlikely), I would expect it to be narrowly defined so as to apply only to children born of parents not present legally in the country - and likely with a specific carveout for those who overstay visas and such, as those people are clearly subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of the application process. The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever.
- oldsklgdfth 11mo ago> The absolute largest change I would expect would be to end birthright citizenship for children whose parents illegally entered into the US and have never had a visa of entry permit of any type whatsoever. That's the vibe I get. However, I don't see a definition of jurisdiction in the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that would make this workable. How do you see this being resolved?
- Ancapistani 11mo ago> How do you see this being resolved? At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government. I expect that there will be enough of a headline here for the Trump administration to hold it up as a victory, while being so narrowly defined that it will only apply to a relative handful of individuals. The court's interest here is most likely a precedent that will be applicable in subsequent cases. It could conceivably end up establishing a new, weaker form of Chevron deference where ambiguity is interpreted in the light most beneficial to the People.
- jswelker 11mo agoI think the court is trying desperately to avoid having to rule on anything and will slow walk this until it hopefully goes away, while giving the admin virtual carte blanche to do what they want.
- Ancapistani 11mo agoI can see why you'd say that, but I'm actually thinking on a longer timeline. They've been trending that way for almost a decade now, and seem to be accelerating a bit. Most recently, the overturning of the Chevron deference doctrine comes to mind, and that was in July 2024.
- disgruntledphd2 11mo agoIf they do the same thing to Republican presidents then I'll believe it's principled. I haven't seen much sign of that, though. Like, whatever happened to the major questions doctrine? Feels like that should apply to a bunch of Trump's actions.
- IAmBroom 11mo ago> At a much higher level, this court seems to be attempting to slowly and carefully reign in the power of the federal government. The same court that said POTUS is immune to prosecution for anything he does as part of his office? How can you conceivably think this SCOTUS is doing anything but increasing the reach of the Executive Branch?
- commandlinefan 11mo ago> those people are clearly subject to US jurisdiction by virtue of the application process. But the wording doesn't apply to the parents, it applies to the baby: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", not "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
- Ancapistani 11mo agoFWIW, I think that's a strong argument.
- nullocator 11mo ago> It's extremely uncommon for the court to issue an opinion with such large repercussions. Like Dobbs (Abortion), Bruen (Guns), Students for Fair Admissions (Affirmative Action), Loper Bright, Destruction of the voting rights act, Trump is king, etc This supreme court issues at least one opinion with massive repercussions each term, every term. I simply don't know how you are under the impression that they care about repercussions in the slightest. They don't much care for rationale explanation or precedent either.
- cratermoon 11mo agoHannah Arendt's 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism in the chapter titled "The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man" discusses how European countries did this after World War I and the results of those efforts.
- D13Fd 11mo ago> We know the current supreme court will end this. Do we? The language of the 14th Amendment is extraordinarily clear: "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." I agree it's possible that the Court will just throw it out. But at that point, what meaning does the constitution have? How are any of our rights protected if the Court can just void the plain language of an amendment? Crazy stuff.
- jfengel 11mo agoThe meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is flexible enough for them to decide whatever they want it to mean.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- RajT88 11mo agoThey found some bullshit way of negating, "a well regulated militia". You are completely correct this will be the focus. Textualism when they want to uphold it, originalism when they do not.
- cratermoon 11mo agoThe court will probably look at the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
- jswelker 11mo agoI don't think they have the balls to end it. I think they just decide that adjudication on the case takes 4+ years, they sidestep making any real decision, and they hope and pray the whole thing goes away with the next administration. In the mean time, the Trump admin continues to do what they want, with the fig leaf that they promise they will listen to the court.
- palmotea 11mo ago> What happens if the parents became citizens after their children were born. Will the children be deemed non-US ? There are already laws about that. IIRC, all minor children become citizens when a parent is naturalized.
- jmclnx 11mo agoThat seems fine, but what about Adult Children ? And maybe their children. Their parents had them and some became citizens once they became adults (kids 18+ years old). If ended it will be a big mess I think. But if they do end it, maybe this rule will be applied starting 'today', not retroactively.
- IAmBroom 11mo agoThose laws might be rendered incompatible with the SCOTUS decision.
- cratermoon 11mo agoThe court will do as European countries did after the first world war: people of certain backgrounds and having some kind of stateless or refugee status will be deprived of any birthright. Left unchallenged, this will eventually lead to mass de-naturalization and deportation or, for those with no country or whose country refuses them, indefinite detention in some kind of "displaced persons" camp.