Second Trump Presidency (2025-)

[Legio_Italica]

The specific argument here is that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would exclude illegal immigrants. But that interpretation would imply that illegals are not subject to US law, which wouldn't make sense.

Why not? Illegals haven’t renounced allegiance to their home countries or sworn to the US as immigrants are required to do and thus can’t be prosecuted for treason, they can’t be drafted into the military or compelled to sit on a jury or perform other duties of citizens, etc. They are legally alien to the US.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...4th-amendment/

[Laser101]

Why not? Illegals haven’t renounced allegiance to their home countries or sworn to the US as immigrants are required to do and thus can’t be prosecuted for treason, they can’t be drafted into the military or compelled to sit on a jury or perform other duties of citizens, etc. They are legally alien to the US.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/...4th-amendment/

Per Plyler v. Doe (1982):
"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful"

While you could make an argument that this judgement should be overturned, that's a judicial matter not an executive one.

[Legio_Italica]

That case was about the equal protection clause, not the citizenship clause, thus the quoted portion is considered legal “dicta” as opposed to binding precedent. This was explained in the previously referenced article. Anyway, law enforcement is necessarily based on interpretation of the law, and the court can decide if that interpretation is correct, so that’s a moot point here. It’s not as though conservatives who pushed for this EO didn’t expect to be sued. Some are of the opinion the POTUS is within his enforcement rights to interpret the citizenship clause on his own, others want to use it as leverage to bring the issue to court because they believe the existing caselaw is too ambiguous and birth tourism exploits a loophole.

[Laser101]

That case was about the equal protection clause, not the citizenship clause, thus the quoted portion is considered legal “dicta” as opposed to binding precedent. This was explained in the previously referenced article. Anyway, law enforcement is necessarily based on interpretation of the law, and the court can decide if that interpretation is correct, so that’s a moot point here. It’s not as though conservatives who pushed for this EO didn’t expect to be sued. Some are of the opinion the POTUS is within his enforcement rights to interpret the citizenship clause on his own, others want to use it as leverage to bring the issue to court because they believe the existing caselaw is too ambiguous and birth tourism exploits a loophole.

And if the Supreme Court doesn't agree with Trump's interpretation?

[Legio_Italica]

Agree or disagree, there’s reason to consider it the first and necessary decision on whether or not the citizenship clause of the 14 Amendment applies to illegal migrants. Whether or not SCOTUS prevents states or the other branches from restricting birthright citizenship would depend on the nature of the case and the subsequent precedent.

In any event, the issue is of critical importance to Trump’s legacy and to the integrity of our elections. Even if he manages to deport a significant portion of the millions of illegal migrants living here, 80% of their children are born in the US, so that complicates the possibility of ever deporting a huge portion of the illegal migrant population as long as their children are automatically citizens. Their birthrate is far higher than that of US citizens, and 30% of people in the US under 18 have at least one foreign born parent, a figure at historic highs and growing.

Foreign voters, also at historic highs and growing, are far more likely than citizens to support increased immigration and associated policies, regardless of social views, and the cycle continues as migrants bring with them the degradation of state capacity and institutional corruption from their home societies. Anyone who is serious about “defending democracy” is serious about reversing this trend, though I concede it’s probably too late.

[Coughdrop addict]

Just to be clear that if the president can unilaterally decide who is and isn't a citizen, a future Democratic president can just declare that MAGAs are no longer citizens and deport them?

As for gutting the federal bureaucracy, you'll miss it once a war or huge disaster hits and no one has any idea what to do because they were hired solely based on their ability to flatter Trump.

Oh, and since we can now just name geographic features whatever, I propose we all start calling it the "Gulf of Donald Trump is a whiny little manbaby."

[Laser101]

Agree or disagree, there’s reason to consider it the first and necessary decision on whether or not the citizenship clause of the 14 Amendment applies to illegal migrants. Whether or not SCOTUS prevents states or the other branches from restricting birthright citizenship would depend on the nature of the case and the subsequent precedent.

In any event, the issue is of critical importance to Trump’s legacy and to the integrity of our elections. Even if he manages to deport a significant portion of the millions of illegal migrants living here, 80% of their children are born in the US, so that complicates the possibility of ever deporting a huge portion of the illegal migrant population as long as their children are automatically citizens. Their birthrate is far higher than that of US citizens, and 30% of people in the US under 18 have at least one foreign born parent, a figure at historic highs and growing.

Foreign voters, also at historic highs and growing, are far more likely than citizens to support increased immigration and associated policies, regardless of social views, and the cycle continues as migrants bring with them the degradation of state capacity and institutional corruption from their home societies. Anyone who is serious about “defending democracy” is serious about reversing this trend, though I concede it’s probably too late.

There's a difference between what the law should be and what it is. The established practice in the US is that children born within the US are American citizens unless they belong to a family holding diplomatic immunity (who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US).

Here in Australia unrestricted birthright citizenship was abolished in 1986. However, unlike in the US Australian citizenship is a purely statutory matter and not a constitutional one.

[Legio_Italica]

There's a difference between what the law should be and what it is.

If that were the case, denying birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants would require abolishing that portion of the 14th amendment. It doesn’t, because it’s a question of interpretation, that is, what the law should be.

[Laser101]

If that were the case, denying birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants would require abolishing that portion of the 14th amendment. It doesn’t, because it’s a question of interpretation, that is, what the law should be.

Interpretation of the law is the Supreme Court's job, not the president's. Although it is likely that the EO was intended to be challenged so as to force the matter to the court.
Of course, there's no guarantee that Trump will get what he wants from the SC. If they don't agree, then the EO will have to be cancelled.

[Laser101]

If that were the case, denying birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants would require abolishing that portion of the 14th amendment. It doesn’t, because it’s a question of interpretation, that is, what the law should be.

Interpretation of the law is the Supreme Court's job, not the president's. Although it is likely that the EO was intended to be challenged so as to force the matter to the court.
Of course, there's no guarantee that Trump will get what he wants from the SC. If they don't agree, then the EO will have to be cancelled.

(This has been posted twice for some reason).

[Legio_Italica]

The president interprets the law to enforce it. SCOTUS could punt the whole issue by deferring to the Executive on this. I don’t see that happening, but it depends on how and whether the issue ends up there. They could narrow or limit the scope of the White House’s authority in this case. Or they could toss it all together. It’s a matter of degrees, not roles.

[Coughdrop addict]

As the new dark age of humanity falls, it's good to know at least some MAGAs are facing justice.

https://www.the-express.com/news/pol...e-coin-melania

Traders have lost millions of dollars on a 'fake' Barron Trump meme coin.
Before Monday's inauguration, Donald and Melania Trump launched a pair of meme coins that at one stage were worth billions.
Trump's cryptocurrency token skyrocketed in value but came crashing down in spectacular fashion, leading copycats to create an unofficial coin for Barron, 18.

Meme coins are cryptocurrencies often built around popular internet trends and lack substantial utility, making them prone to volatile price swings
The fake $BARRON meme coin, inspired by Trump's youngest son but with no official link, surged by 90% in a minute before completely losing its value.
One trader claimed they lsot a staggering $1 million in just two hours, with many mistakenly thinking it was connected to Barron.

I even read of one MAGA who dropped his entire savings on these worthless Trump memecoins and is now left with nothing. He was desperately asking what he should do, with the most popular response being "Get a job you lazy DEI Marxist!"

[Laser101]

The president interprets the law to enforce it. SCOTUS could punt the whole issue by deferring to the Executive on this. I don’t see that happening, but it depends on how and whether the issue ends up there. They could narrow or limit the scope of the White House’s authority in this case. Or they could toss it all together. It’s a matter of degrees, not roles.

To no one's surprise, Trump's citizenship EO has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. Trump says he'll appeal the ruling, so as expected the matter will eventually have to go to the Supreme Court.

[Coughdrop addict]

To no one's surprise, Trump's citizenship EO has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. Trump says he'll appeal the ruling, so as expected the matter will eventually have to go to the Supreme Court.

Trump was reportedly shaking with rage and screaming profanity as his handlers tried (unsuccessfully) to explain that a Federal Judge cannot simply be fired, regardless of any EOs he passes that prohibit government employees from having certain skin colors.

[Laser101]

Trump was reportedly shaking with rage and screaming profanity as his handlers tried (unsuccessfully) to explain that a Federal Judge cannot simply be fired

Technically judges can be impeached, but that's not something the president can do.

regardless of any EOs he passes that prohibit government employees from having certain skin colors.

That's... not one of his EOs though?

[Sir Adrian]

The pardon of 1500 insurrectionists is a direct insult and challenge to every US citizen.

[Gigantus]

Project 2025 is also taking off by the looks of it. "Replacement of career bureaucrats with Trump loyalists"

Never mind that it violates federal law in this case.

[Coughdrop addict]

The pardon of 1500 insurrectionists is a direct insult and challenge to every US citizen.

The message he wants to send is that crime and violence in his name will be rewarded. We are now being ruled by gangsters.

[Laser101]

Project 2025 is also taking off by the looks of it. "Replacement of career bureaucrats with Trump loyalists"

Never mind that it violates federal law in this case.

Is that grounds to sue for wrongful dismissal?

[Gigantus]

Is that grounds to sue for wrongful dismissal?

Pretty much so. I seem to recall that this provision came into law back in 2022, probably with just this kind of scenario in mind, eg arbitrary removal of career bureaucrats.

The law requires a president to give Congress "substantive rationale, including detailed and case specific reasons" for the dismissals 30 days in advance, the council said in the letter to Sergio Gor, White House personnel director.

Looking at the last days I think Trump will continue his career as 'most litigated' person into his second presidency as well. In most of these cases however delay tactics are certainly not in his favor.