this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
570 points (97.3% liked)

News

30654 readers
5236 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 36 points 2 days ago (4 children)

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.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

He won because he can delay actually following the law until he's dead because it will be impractical to stop him

[–] FanciestPants@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 9 points 2 days ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Which is incredibly bad

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 75 points 2 days ago (14 children)

If you end birthright citizenship, then nobody gets to be a citizen by birth. If you can't be a citizen by birth, the only way to become a citizen is naturalization. If the only citizens are naturalized people, the country is 100% immigrants.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And if immigrants don’t need due process and can be sent to concentration camps then it’s really easy to make anyone disappear

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If immigrants don't get due process, then nobody gets due process.

You could arrest Bill Clinton and claim he's an immigrant. If that means he doesn't get due process, he can never prove he's not an immigrant, and so he's stuck in Guantanamo forever.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] UncleGrandPa@lemmy.world 68 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

He is much closer to his stated goal

The power to deport any natural Born Citizen on demand for no reason at all

He has stated he wants.... Needs this

On Exactly why he has been vague

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mienshao@lemm.ee 240 points 3 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] WatDabney@fedia.io 137 points 3 days ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 115 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (19 children)

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.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] guyoverthere123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 days ago (3 children)

So... He's goin to deport Baron Trump then, right?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 61 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (10 children)

Wait ... Doesn't "citizenship" mean where you're born?

It's either where you're born or where you live. Which is it?

Wtf even is citizenship then?

"I'm from Ireland" is synonymous with "I'm Irish"... Right?

So if you're born in America, wouldn't you... Be American?

If he takes that away, you aren't just magically from nowhere, you're still American.

This is stupid and makes no sense, it's all just classism and racism. I hate everything.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 95 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Its the same as the election between Obama and McCain, in ways a lot of people dont realize.

Obama, by virtue of having a non-traditional name and not being white, was hounded by birthers despite being born an American citizen clear as day with absolutely no question about it.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone the year before people born in the canal zone were granted citizenship at birth. Arguably he was not a citizen at birth under the definitional requirements of the constitution to be president. He was naturalized as a citizen retroactively.

Palin is part native, and was pretty heavily involved with Alaska Native movements that rejected US sovereignty and thereby rejected claims to citizenship. But no one talked about that either because shes also largely seen as just being a white American.

And yet Obama, who was American thru and thru from birth without question, never was involved with Hawaiian sovereignty movements, is the one whos citizenship was questioned.

“White makes right” is the rule of law to these people

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 18 points 2 days ago

You've just given it ten times more thought than the Trump team has.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee 73 points 3 days ago (10 children)

At what point does everyone say "if he's not following the law, then neither should we"?

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›