U.S. Politics

[usaindia]

Trump starts with end of Birthright citizenship EO

[ericcw]

Thankfully kids and grand kids took it before we relocated back to India.

Next 4 yrs will be torrid. Hope Harris will reverse this decision when she comes back in 2029

[arjun2761]

Trump starts with end of Birthright citizenship EO

Since birthright citizenship is considered a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment, this EO will likely be blocked by the courts and end up at the Supreme Court which will have to reverse its prior interpretation. Even in that situation, this should be something that should be enacted by Congress since most of the immigration and citizenship laws are statutory.

[Atithee]

Also, this EO applies only to visa holders (both parents) and those without visas. As Arjun said, an EO cannot change this constitutional right. It will require an amendment to the constitution or at least its interpretation, which is far more difficult to achieve.

P.S. Eric (?), you have grandkids?

[arjun2761]

Yes, if one parent is a US citizen, the statutory scheme (Immigration and Nationalization Act) grants citizenship (or eligibility for citizenship) to their child even if the child is born outside the US. Given the explicit wording of the 14th Amendment, it will be difficult for the current Supreme Court to reverse their previous interpretation. Of course, they have done just that with respect to Roe v. Wade (on abortion rights), but that was a right not really based on any clear constitutional wording -- rather it was a made up right by a prior Supreme Court decision (and hence easier to over turn).

[PKBasu]

Ending birthright citizenship is deeply unpopular in the US (about 2/3rd of the populace disagrees with it). So, apart from requiring a Constitutional Amendment, this executive order is unlikely to stand for too long. Most Americans have benefited from birthright citizenship. But eventually, more nuanced legislation will probably emerge. US-born children of foreign illegals or temporary visitors (without any US citizen/PR parent) will probably be barred from automatically becoming citizens. I think that is the main target, but Trump used a sledgehammer as the first step of a legislative negotiation (which may still require a constitutional amendment).

[usaindia]

Right now House, senate ,presidency all with republicans and even supreme court sides with them, So all it need at least is different interpretation from the Supreme court justices.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what- ... ngNewsSerp

[arjun2761]

Yes, but the wording is pretty clear. CJ Roberts is a pretty fair jurist. So if either Barrett or Gorsuch (who are also reasonable jurists) sides with the 3 liberal justices, the previous interpretation of an unambiguous constitutional term is likely to stand. No guarantees but my sense is that the SCT will strike down the EO if it is appealed to the SCT.

[usaindia]

Yes, but the wording is pretty clear. CJ Roberts is a pretty fair jurist. So if either Barrett or Gorsuch (who are also reasonable jurists) sides with the 3 liberal justices, the previous interpretation of an unambiguous constitutional term is likely to stand. No guarantees but my sense is that the SCT will strike down the EO if it is appealed to the SCT.

lot of folks are counting on the same logic, but people thought same for Roe vs Wade .Also with trump you can never underestimate the power he has over these justices.

[PKBasu]

On Greenland, there is a lot of hyper-ventilating by liberals and Europeans.

But Denmark is on extremely slippery ground. There is just a single military base on Greenland, and it is American (although officially a NATO base). I don't think Denmark pays much for that base. (Denmark's military spending was 1.4% of GDP in 2022, and is now estimated to be getting closer to 2% of GDP; but is even that sufficient to credibly defend Greenland?). The 57,000 people of Greenland (or at least a majority of them) want to secede from Denmark -- but of course they will need military assistance to defend any independence. The US is almost certainly better positioned to defend Greenland than Denmark is, so the idea of the US buying Greenland isn't as outlandish as it sounded when first broached.

[prasen9]

Greenlanders do not want to be part of U.S. any more than they want to be part of Denmark.

[prasen9]

Yes, but the wording is pretty clear. CJ Roberts is a pretty fair jurist. So if either Barrett or Gorsuch (who are also reasonable jurists) sides with the 3 liberal justices, the previous interpretation of an unambiguous constitutional term is likely to stand. No guarantees but my sense is that the SCT will strike down the EO if it is appealed to the SCT.

Roberts is a "pretty fair jurist" and "Barrett and Gorsuch" are reasonable jurists - this is only agreed to by about half the country, right-wingers are an overwhelming majority of who will say that. All of these guys are politicians. They get the decision they want to support first and then they figure out some reasoning. All of them are forced birthers and turned down a half century of precedent. They are owned by the Federalist Society. All of these guys are partisan hacks. There is no fair jurist anymore. About 30% of the country has any confidence in them because of their political decisions across the board. And, actually, Kavanaugh is more moderate than Gorsuch. Gorsuch is part of the hard-right. The only cases where he is a moderate is wrt indigenous Americans' rights and Western states' rights along with sexual discrimination. For all other issues, Gorsuch is a strongly fundamentalist right-wing political hack.

If I were to bet, I would bet that the SCOTUS will not support the ending of citizenships by birth too. I was only objecting to calling them a fair jurist or reasonable jurist.

[prasen9]

Ending birthright citizenship is deeply unpopular in the US (about 2/3rd of the populace disagrees with it). So, apart from requiring a Constitutional Amendment, this executive order is unlikely to stand for too long.

That does not matter to the politicians in the U.S. and the Supreme Court's junior-grade politicians. See a woman's right to her body. The U.S. system is rigged in favor of the small, conservative states by virtue of all states having two senators each: big or small. The court system is rigged because they have a heavy majority and they are only confirmed by the senate. They can time their retirements to make sure it remains in the hands of the right wing fundamentalists for a long time. They do not need the people to support them because they know the people cannot do much (unless there are several wave elections and the population is polarized due to tribalism and misinformation) due to the structure of the Supreme Court and the Senate.

Most Americans have benefited from birthright citizenship.

Most Americans have benefited from immigration too but now tribalism and propaganda rules and not common sense or logic.

But eventually, more nuanced legislation will probably emerge. US-born children of foreign illegals or temporary visitors (without any US citizen/PR parent) will probably be barred from automatically becoming citizens. I think that is the main target, but Trump used a sledgehammer as the first step of a legislative negotiation (which may still require a constitutional amendment).

A constitutional ammendment will not pass to achieve this. But, the activist Supreme Court may do this. Actually, I expect them to do this eventually.