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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Basically every country in earth does not use birth right citizenship. It’s basically only a feature of new world colony countries.
The majority of the world does not use it. The americas may have a lot of landmass they do not have the majority of people.
It’s mostly based on parentage or blood. You arnt ever born with out citizenship some country always lays claim to ownership of your person. But it’s not normally based on the borders ownership, but the person’s giving birth ownership.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
It allows them to denounce citizenship of whoever they deem an enemy of the state. Hence then allowing to revoke the right of any and creating a fear state, behave or behead.
Along with setting precedent that an acting head can unilaterally change the foundations. Hence creating no quantifiable term for rights, as they then get to choose who benefits from them.
If the nation that held your birth and upbringing doesn’t want you, what is your right anywhere else?
What are you talking about? It would allow them to revoke the citizenship of people born in the US to 2 non-citizens. That’s not a significant portion of the population.
But it creates a precedent which is all the legality of systems needs. Most courts only work by if it has precedent or not. One precedent leads to another and another. Dude why am I explaining the domino chain fully elaborated in project 2025?
You’re not allowed to make a person stateless.
Says who? The UN? A treaty the US didn’t sign?
The constitution says people born here are citizens and they’ve decided to pretend it doesn’t. Why would an organization they want to withdraw from or a treaty they don’t recognize get more weight?
And what’s the stateless person going to do if they’re wronged? Sue?
Constitutions can be altered, amended. Which seems to be what Trump wants to do.
I’m just telling you that the majority of countries does not have birthright citizenship. It’s something you inherit from your parents. Provided they file for it if you’re born outside of a hospital or abroad.
And no. Birthright citizenship is not a human right.
And yes, someone becoming stateless against their will, would have to sue.
I’m not arguing for or against it. Not my bone to pick.
The president doesn’t get to change the constitution, or amend it. Congress doesn’t even have that power, the most they can do is present it to the states.
What you’re doing is arguing that a non-binding statement or a treaty that the US isn’t a party to is somehow a better source for morality and defining what constitutes a human right than decency or thinking for yourself.
Don’t outsource your conscience to dead guys from the 40s.If someone was born here, they can be one of us. Both constitutionally and morally. The UN and Trump have fuck all to do with morality. Kicking someone out of their home because of where their parents are from is wrong.
As for the lawsuit… Where would they sue? On what possible grounds do you think that would even get a hearing? Who do you think would enforce the ruling?
The US has signed no treaty agreeing to not make people stateless.
What possible standing would anyone have to argue in court that a country denied them citizenship, particularly if, as you say, no one has a right to citizenship in any particular country? Or is jus soli citizenship a right but only if you don’t have any other option?Someone definitely have the power to amend the Constitution, seeing as you have several amendments. No?
Again. What you want Human Rights to be. Doesn’t change what they actually are.
You don’t think that everyone will have different opinions of what should and shouldn’t be included? So how would you ever be able to say what they are?
Why do you seem to think that morality would be limited to Human Rights? Things can not be a right, and still immoral. Morality is also a very subjective thing.
What isn’t subjective. Is the Human Rights as determined by the UN.
I’m not going to argue about who and who doesn’t get to be a US citizen. But changing the way nationality is given, is factually not a Human Rights issue.
You can say it’s a constitutional issue. But it sure isn’t a Human Rights one.
As to the last part. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not going to speculate in the legal defense. You asked what they would do, sue? And the answer is yes.
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.
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.
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.
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?”
RIP the US Constitution
It is time to renew the Tree of Liberty.
Fuck that, time to arm Liberty Prime
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.
Looking into it this whole thing is way more complicated than the headline makes it sound. The Supreme Court didn’t actually give Trump permission to end birthright citizenship, they just made a ruling about how courts can block federal policies nationwide.
Basically what happened: Trump’s birthright citizenship order has been blocked by multiple federal judges who said it’s probably unconstitutional. Instead of arguing the constitutional issue (which he’d probably lose), Trump’s team asked the Supreme Court to limit judges’ power to issue nationwide blocks on policies. The Court agreed 6-3, but they specifically did NOT rule on whether ending birthright citizenship is legal.
So now Trump’s celebrating like he won, but really all that changed is the procedural stuff. The constitutional problems with his order are still there: the 14th Amendment is pretty clear about birthright citizenship. Lower courts still have to reconsider their rulings, and immigrant rights groups are already filing new lawsuits.
It’s more of a tactical win for Trump that might let him try to implement parts of his agenda in some places, but the fundamental legal challenges haven’t gone away. The Truthout article is at least a little hyperbolic imo.
He did win though, because by telling federal judges that their rulings against executive orders cannot be… Federal, nationwide, the supreme court took away about 99% of the (already mediocre) checks and balances against Trump’s power (and any presidents power). To pass it off as just some procedural stuff misses how impactful this is, the only court powers that can stop his kings laws by edict (‘executive orders’) now are: case by case state-based rulings for federal judges, and the supreme court itself for nationwide rulings.
This is largely what Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent: this is a huge expansion of presidential powers by the SC removing restrictions from the president, over an issue that is abundantly clearly illegal (denying birthright citizenship), and it leaves the door wide open to further illegal orders.
Her dissent is worth a read, it begins on page 54: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf
Fair point.
I was definitely too focused on the narrow “did they rule on birthright citizenship” question and missed the bigger picture. You’re right that this is way more than just procedural, it’s a massive shift in executive power.
The fact that federal judges can now only issue piecemeal, state-by-state rulings essentially breaks their ability to actually check presidential overreach in any meaningful way.
I think I got too caught up in fact checking the specific headline and missed how big Trump’s win actually was here, just not in the way the headlines suggested. Thanks for the correction.
My prior understanding of the issue at hand is that the probable downside for limiting the nationwide application of some federal judge rulings is that the federal agencies have the resources to select a jurisdiction to enact rules that local judges have determined to be unconstitutional to one where local judges have not. Ex. if Feds can’t violate someone’s civil rights in New York, just move that someone to Florida where the Federal Agency can violate their civil rights.
Certainly there are scenarios in which federal judges being able to issue nationwide rulings is detrimental to left leaning causes as well (mifepristone bans), however without the supreme court first taking up the case of the constitutionality of birthright citizenship before making this current ruling on application of nationwide rulings, they’re just being a bunch of shit fuck cowards.
100% on both counts.
The forum shopping issue you’re describing is exactly the problem. Trump’s team can now basically pick and choose where to implement policies that have been ruled unconstitutional elsewhere. It creates this patchwork where your constitutional rights depend on geography, which is obviously fucked.
And you’re spot on about the cowardice. The Supreme Court absolutely should have ruled on the constitutional question first. That’s the actual substantive issue everyone cares about. Instead they took the cop out that gives Trump more power without having to make the hard call on whether his order is constitutional.
Honestly it looks like classic Roberts Court behaviour: make big changes to how government works while pretending you’re just doing technical legal housekeeping. They know damn well that ruling on birthright citizenship would be messy and politically explosive, so they found a way to help Trump without having to own the constitutional implications.
Your point about this cutting both ways (like with mifepristone) is important too, but the timing here makes it pretty clear what they’re really doing.
He won because he can delay actually following the law until he’s dead because it will be impractical to stop him
Can the supreme court just straight up ignore the constitution, under the constitution?
Surely no, right?
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.
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.
From what I understand, its not the supreme court ok’d his move rather they stopped other lower federal courts from creating injunctions that stop the entire process, and they now limited them to stopping only those who bring forth lawsuits and who are affected by whatever it is.
Which is incredibly bad
Wouldn’t it be simpler if he just ended citizenship? Then he could freely oppress just about anyone.
Same thing if you can override constitutional rights by executive fiat without an amendment ratified by Congress.
Constitutional amendments are ratified by the states individually, not by Congress.
“Congratulations! You’ve just been promoted to US Deputy Secretary of State for the Trump Administration… Thank you for your great ideas!”
so according to the new laws, if you go up in the generations far enough, no american is a citizen.
A goldmine for selective enforcement.
Question : didn’t the supreme court just say that lower level judges can’t block him? Which would mean that appeal judges can? So this question is far from settled?
I think they said the judge didn’t have the right to block it nation wide, only for the states that sued, which was 22 or something like that.
It’s still a right embedded in the constitution. The supreme court didn’t say he could do it…but the orange Cheetos in chief probably thinks they did because his mother gave birth to him at the top of a ladder
The ability to shop around for a favorable jusrisdiction is quite potent when rearranging people is supremely easy. Ship the kids to Texas then start deporting them.
They might be able to avoid a real supreme Court case by backing off in local jurisdictions causing the cases to no longer have standing and just keep it up in jurisdictions that are friendly to the administration.
Moron is literally BEGGING
This is the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution. As a lawyer for the federal government, I need everyone to know that this officially marks the end of United States rule of law. Protect yourselves, and godspeed.
Billionaires and politicians. No one else matters. Don’t be distracted by the broke Nazis at ICE. The true threat numbers in the hundreds.
Well, honestly, billionaires and politicians also wouldn’t have any guaranteed rights. No one would, because anybody could have citizenship taken away at any moment: we are all citizens because we were born here and no other reason.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
I’m coping so hard by hoping that we swing very hard to the left, if only just so that these cynical, fossilized assholes live to see their bullshit rulings used against them.
I wish we could even agree where left was, but we have as many Zohran Momandi supporters as people who think Zohran’s party are satan worshipping paid shills.
This is definitely worrisome.
But is it the end of the Constitution quite yet?
The Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on the executive order trying to negate birthright citizenship, they said that lower courts couldn’t block EO’s at a national level.
Implicitly, their not commenting on the EO feels like they’ll let it stand when the case arrives, if they choose to hear it. Then I’d say the US Constitution is toast.
I’m an engineer, not a lawyer. I’d love to hear what someone more knowledgeable about this thinks.
The fact they took a copout path to not speak to the important part is a worrisome sign. If the matter were actually before them, they may rule it as unconstitutional, but they seem to be inclined to have the matter never be technically before them.
A district ruling against the order? Let it stand without taking up the case and potentially setting it nationwide. The people have no standing to appeal because they won their case.
Oh look, a jusge in Texas ruled in favor of the order, all of a sudden the government is shuffling immigrants around and deporting all birthright citizens from that jurisdiction.
They ended the ability of the Judiciary to check the Executive. That’s the very foundation of the government, set out in the Constitution: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation01.html
So yeah, it’s the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution.
I’m not happy about this either, but let’s just make sure we’re all on the same page here:
They ended the ability of the Judiciary to check the Executive.
No, they ended the ability of the lower courts to check the executive nationwide. The supreme court can still check the executive (and the US Court of Appeals?).
Now I’m trying to figure out if the lower courts can still check the executive, but only in their respective areas, or if they can make a decision, but it has to be confirmed by (at least?) the court of appeals.
From what I’m reading here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/
It looks like a lower court can still request to check the executive, but the higher courts will need to grant it. At least according to Kavanaugh’s opinion:
the courts of appeals and the Supreme Court will inevitably weigh in on district court decisions granting or denying requests for preliminary injunctions.
Yes, let’s make sure we’re on the same page. You’re talking about theory, I’m talking about practice - which, in theory, are the same. In practice, however…
Oh, in practice it’s been dead for decades.
There isn’t going to be a single moment where the constitution stops existing. It’s not like a light switch. It’s a rapid erosion, like the start of a landslide, and the snow is already moving
Yes it is. Trump can effectively ignore any constitutional amendment for more than long enough to start sending people to concentration camps. This also probably isn’t the end of it, as I doubt the justices will be more willing to stand up to him in the future once he’s consolidated power further.
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.
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.
It doesn’t. The ruling makes little sense and is just showing that playing the game with absolutely no ethics works very well.
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.
The US collapsing is going to absolutely affect the rest of the world. This is very VERY bad.
Lest we forget:
Fourteenth Amendment, 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.
Pretty hard to argue that “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” doesn’t mean what it clearly states. It’s not even in legalese. The fact that this wasn’t laughed out of court says everything.
That’s what the Constitution says, and Trump now has nothing that can legally stop him from doing it.
Which means the Constitution is dead letter.
That goes both ways, and states need to start acting on it. They need to start passing a flurry of laws criminalizing ICE tactics. Pass laws making it a felony to:
-
Conduct law enforcement while masked
-
To search homes without a warrant
-
To enter various protected locations for law enforcement purposes when there isn’t an immediate threat.
They need to take cues from the anti-abortion playbook. Pass a law requiring all immigration detainees be transported in limousines. Require ICE to old prisoners in five star hotels. Require immigration officers to have at least two doctoral degrees. Make it a felony to do immigration enforcement without doing these things. Just start writing dozens of crazy laws criminalizing every aspect of ICE’s operations. Then let the individual ICE agents try and challenge them individually.
Better than that remove all immunity from law enforcement officers if…
They do not have a signed judicial warrant.
They do not verbally and visually identify themselves and the branch or organization they work for.
Without those two things, they cannot be verified as law enforcement acting in official capacity, and they should be treated as regular civilians. If a bunch of regular Joes jump out of a van and try to black bag you, you should have the right to defend yourself with lethal force.
I would go even further. A masked individual tries to abduct people? It’s perfectly legal for anyone to shoot them dead right on the spot. Law enforcement who dress like human traffickers should be put in the ground like human traffickers.
-
They haven’t decided on the legality of it yet. They just decided that courts cannot issue universal injunctions. They can only stop it at a case by case level for those who are suing. If they decide it’s unconstitutional, then it’ll have to stop nationally, but a lot of damage can be done before then. I think they’ll decide in October…
I’m looking forward to fucktons of individual suits absolutely slamming the courts every time an EO is issued. crowdfund the filing fees. turn petitions into copypasta. DDoS the Court system. they literally asked for this.
I’d support this. Build an AI tool that’ll take care of it for you.
It is just a fucking piece of paper.
If the judges and politicians and police don’t care and no one else can do anything then it means nothing.
It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.
North Korea of America is where we are now.
Uggh. I can work out whether to upvote you for the accurate summary of the source of law & state power or downvote you for the utter idiocy of the invasion statement.
Russia can’t - they’re struggling to take over a country a fifth their size and have burnt through their Soviet stockpiles.
UK & EU certainly won’t invade, at most they’d send a peacekeeping force to protect civilians at a UN request (UN probably wouldnt pass it)
Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.
Mexico might just on principle (payback’s a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.
Same for South American Asian and African countries.
That leaves China, and if you think the Chinese are stupid enough to insert themselves in your civil war and create a sole enemy for both sides to fight you have zero understanding of the Chinese strategy.
The Chinese will wait for you all to decimate the country and each other, then come in and buy up the bits they want. Oh and invade Taiwan while y’all are busy destroying your country.
Putin’s plan to destroy the US has worked magnificently.
Canada will be stretched just keeping fighting out of its borders.
Canada just needs to send one guy over to say “you should be our eleventh province” and most of New England will say “yes please, I’m sick of whatever shit the regressives are doing now”
Mexico might just on principle (payback’s a bitch) but has bugger all capacity.
More accurately, we literally can’t be bothered. Our state of affairs doesn’t allow for a war, and by that, I mean that a huge national protest would ensue, and many politicians would strike it down for many reasons. Nobody here is interested, and after fighting narcos for so long, we’d rather have peace.
It is this or bloody revolution and that would lead to the US being invaded by multiple other countries and shit getting worse and worse.
No other nations are going to be invading the US, let alone multiple of them. They don’t have the logistics for it.
Why bother? The US is doing just fine destroying itself.
Or the desire, who the hell would want to try a hostile occupation of the US ?
who the hell would want to try a hostile occupation of the US ?
This administration, it seems.
Other nations wouldn’t invade. But in the event of a civil war, you can be certain they would be sending in plenty of heavy weaponry.
Other nations wouldn’t invade. But in the event of a civil war, you can be certain they would be sending in plenty of heavy weaponry.
The US has more military equipment and munitions than the next 5 ranked countries put together - why on earth would there be a need to send weapons ?
Secondly who would be sending weapons ? Russia needs to finish their own war before they could send help to Trump (who will probably have the bulk of the reserves initially), China is unlikely to want to side with either faction, although I’m sure they’d be happy to sell “consumer” Mavic drones to both sides (a la Ukraine).
The remaining western democracies have barely enough capacity to keep Ukraine afloat, although they would side with a pro-democracy anti-Trump faction if it garnered enough support to have a chance but with the massive stockpiles in the US being 100x what the rest of the west has it would be like pissing in the ocean.
In the event of a civil war pro-democracy Americans need to bring military commanders on side so they can utilise existing US stocks - you have the biggest ammo and weapons dumps in the world.
That’s technically not what they ruled on
The problem is and has always been “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
People have been twisting that to mean that anyone that isn’t born to American citizen parents means that you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Funny because that sounds to me like the "illegals"can’t be illegal then. Sounds like they’re not subject to the law anymore.
Yeah, this is the thing that’s ignored because it would let the whole narrative collapse.
Either you can’t deport them because they’re American citizens, or you can’t deport them because they’re not subject to your laws anyway. But in the end, this would just lead to (more) unlawful / illegal deportations.
I mean, the 2nd amendment is clearly only about militias, but you can see how that went.
States need to criminalize the behavior of ICE officers and start arresting them en masse. ICE agents will be free to challenge their imprisonment individually.
I saw a person trying to all caps “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” screaming that this specific clause somehow is the piece that excludes birthright citizenship because something something loyalty to other countries?
So like …kids of illegal aliens are … sovereign citizens?
I think the argument was that if your parents are not naturalized citizens, then that means they’re not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. So like, if the parents ‘owe allegiance’ to their previous country then it makes the kid a citizen of the parents’ original country, and not the U.S.
But it’s all actually bullshit to try and justify not wanting brown people to be U.S. Citizens tbh.
No state shall…but the feds can?
He controls the feds. He’s certainly not stopping himself.
