Summary

Trump announced plans to end birthright citizenship via executive action, despite its constitutional basis in the 14th Amendment.

He also outlined a mass deportation policy, starting with undocumented immigrants who committed crimes and potentially expanding to mixed-status families, who could face deportation as a unit.

Trump said he wants to avoid family separations but left the decision to families.

While doubling down on immigration restrictions, Trump expressed willingness to work with Democrats to create protections for Dreamers under DACA, citing their long-standing integration into U.S. society.

    • bitchkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 个月前

      Musk doesn’t have birthright citizenship. As much as we wish he’d just go away, I hope you’re not suggesting they should expand this program to strip naturalized citizens.

      • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        ·
        1 个月前

        He worked on a student visa after dropping school.

        That’s illegal, so he shouldn’t have qualified for naturalization without correcting that and leaving the country before reapplying.

            • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 个月前

              I feel like there should be a saying involving palm trees with this, as their bark is very different and they are actually closer to grasses than most trees.

              Chop down a palm tree and count the rings to see how old it is, the answer is 0. They don’t make rings, much like a blade of grass. They are fn dinosaur grass basically. (They were around back then). It’s also part of how they can bend and not snap as easily during high winds.

      • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 个月前

        Only thing naturalized about him is his bank account which is what has kept him off the icehouse list

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 个月前

        Will be funny if they have a falling out and Trump rage enforces this against him.

        • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 个月前

          They will inevitably have a falling out because they are both nepo baby idiots who can’t maintain long term relationships aside from sycophants and bootlickers.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 个月前

    i wish everyone would get rid of the assumption that the constitution will protect you

    “that’s unconstitutional!!!” doesn’t mean jack shit anymore

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 个月前

        They’ll deny it until it is happening and they feel safe to admit they believed him and wanted it to happen.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 个月前

          Yup. This exact shit has essentially destroyed my relationship with my parents. I can only ignore the repugnant politics for so long and up to a certain point before I have to reconsider if I want that hatred and bigotry in my life.

    • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 个月前

      I’ve noticed many Americans also talk about those ‘unalienable rights’ like it’s some law of nature. They’re not unalienable. Having rights is not a given. Ask many groups of people throughout history. You only have rights as long as others respect them. Where are your unalienable rights when you’re grabbed off the street in a black van and taken somewhere without anyone knowing? When your fellow citizens / your government decides you shouldn’t have them anymore? If rights were unalienable, why are they dependent on borders?

      Sometimes I think people feel too safe. Otherwise they wouldn’t accept others losing their rights so easily. They still think they won’t/can’t lose their own.

  • UncleJosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 个月前

    My 86-year old mother is house-bound but she is the daughter of two immigrants who came over in the 1910’s, so I guess she’s gonna be shipped off to another country. I have no idea if my brother and I, both in our 50’s would be subjected to deportation considering we haven’t lived with her in over 30 years.

    Maybe the US shouldn’t have elected an out-and-out racist asshole.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 个月前

      I’m the child of an immigrant and a native-born person. So does half of my citizenship get taken away?

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 个月前

          The lower half. I might lose my penis, but I get to keep my brain.

          Unless this is a vertical bisection of course. Then the left side because I’m left-handed.

          Although I wouldn’t have my right brain hemisphere anymore… Now I’m confused.

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 个月前

      Congrats, nearly everyone in the written history of america are immigrants. Anyone after the declaration ? Gone! Immigrants from first and second world war? Gone! Good old usa! ( /s incase its not obvious)

  • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 个月前

    Not sure how he plans on deporting people who were born in the United States and have no citizenship anywhere else since not every country automatically gives it to people’s children born abroad.

    They would effectively have no home country to deport them too.

      • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 个月前

        Slavery is much more economically viable than extermination. So, thank you capitalism, I think?

        • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          2 个月前

          But you also have to keep slaves relatively healthy to maintain them working. If you slaves get too hungry, they can’t do whatever labor you make em do. If they get real sick, it’s going to affect your other slaves.

          And human slaves usually don’t put their heads down and do it forever. A lot of the Nazi labor camps massacred their captives because they started uprisings.

          There is nothing economically feasible with what they want. They just think they can do what they want and he even richer. Which is why you can look at the entirety of recorded human history for these same mistakes being repeated over and over again.

          • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 个月前

            That’s easy, you just continue to expand the list of “undesirables”.

          • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 个月前

            They also don’t seem to know or tend to forget that it only needs a relatively small percentage of the population to flat out resist for society to stop working. Only a few hundreds of thousands of protesters in East Germany brought the country to its knees and effectively ended the Cold War.

    • CurlyWurlies4All@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      2 个月前

      Hello. Australian here. Just ask our sadistic government. We do it all the time. Hint: It involves putting people in camps.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 个月前

        They can’t do that unless Mexico agrees. They can’t just drive people down to San Diego and then shove them into Tijuana.

    • leisesprecher@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 个月前

      Even bigger question: what then?

      Say you deport a citizen of Mexican origin to Mexico. Can’t they just, you know, go back? They’re citizens, with a passport/id.

      The only alternative is to strip them (at least de facto) of their citizenship, which is literally a Hitler move (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetz_über_den_Widerruf_von_Einbürgerungen_und_die_Aberkennung_der_deutschen_Staatsangehörigkeit, only a German source, unfortunately).

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 个月前

        Happened to my grandfather. A Jew born in Germany who emigrated to England in the late 1920s. I have his naturalisation papers from when he became a citizen of the UK in 1936 and his nationality is listed as “stateless.”

      • bitchkat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 个月前

        You don’t even need to read the article. The title states quite clearly this is about citizenship not residence.

        • stormeuh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 个月前

          Which may be the end goal, use this as a wedge to convince their base that revoking citizenship may be justified in some cases.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 个月前

      You are missing out on a key component of their plan: concentration camps.

      He has outright said that he plans on using the same law that was used to justify the internment of Japanese citizens during WW2.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/texas-land-trump-mass-deportation-b2650813.html

      https://www.salon.com/2024/10/11/theyre-animals-vows-mass-deportation-under-law-used-to-justify-japanese-internment-camps/

      Literal concentration camps are coming.

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 个月前

      He was already shocked Bahamas turned down his “offer” to send them deported people. I think it’s only a matter of time before they send a plane somewhere anyhow and get US flights promptly banned everywhere.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 个月前

      They would effectively become stateless. And how they do what from there depends a lot on where they are forcefully relocated to. Assuming the majority will be forced into Mexico, Mexico has an established legal process for accepting refugees. Through the application process, if approved, you (and your family unit) would gain permanent residency. It’s not the same as citizenship, but you could stay there indefinitely and have mostly the same rights as Mexican citizens. You might run into issues with getting passports and traveling internationally, but at the least, you would be able to stay in Mexico. That depends on your refugee application being approved, and I’d imagine when the numbers cross over into the millions their established system would break down a bit and there would probably be very long delays during which you could be deported.

      If it’s somewhere else, well, it varies widely. Most of the Caribbean islands have comparatively smaller populations and probably only handle migration on a small scale. It’s very hard to say how things would play out. Many would almost certainly be forced to illegally immigrate back into America.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 个月前

      He doesn’t plan on shit. Even this Supreme Court would tell him to fuck off.

      • morriscox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 个月前

        Given that the Supreme Court ruled that all official (who decides?) acts are legal, I have no faith in them.

  • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 个月前

    Anyone in the US who believes they have any sort of legal protection is just delusional. The only protection that exists there is through money.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    1 个月前

    It’s never going to stop surprising me when a politician says he’s going to do something, I tell people, and then he does it but so many people were still caught completely off guard. I imagine this is how many in the UK feel about Brexit.

    • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 个月前

      For real Brexit was a stunning result. I just remember this post results interview with same randoms about it and one of the yes voters was like “yea I just through it was never going to happen and voted yes as a laugh.”

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 个月前

      It’s unreal. Days after the election, people I work with were saying that Project 2025 was just propaganda and that he’s not actually going to do all the stuff he said he would do.

      • dmention7@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 个月前

        That’s my mother to a T. She defends all the batshit stuff he spews by saying it’s just a negotiating tactic to get to some “reasonable” compromise. Which may well be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that his opening bid is always something batshit insane and/or cruel, and that he would happily go through with it, if he were allowed to.

    • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 个月前

      The rules do not apply to the rich. I think at this point he has made that clear over and over again.

  • cultsuperstar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 个月前

    So is he going to stop renting his penthouses in Florida to Russians so they can have babies here to be US citizens? Or does his plan only affect brown people?

    • auzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 个月前

      No

      In other news, 34 criminal convictions by a unanimous jury (which is near impossible to win) doesn’t make you a criminal either apparently. You’re only a criminal if you’re related to Biden (and don’t worry, revenge porn by Marjorie is perfectly ok too)

      You could bring down the average conviction rate in the US simply by deporting Trump

  • rational_lib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 个月前

    “Doesn’t the 14th Amendment pose a problem for that plan?”
    “Not a problem, no one handles amendments like me. 14 amendments is nothing, when I…when I do the Christ stuff before food I do 15, 30, 100 amendments. And people say ‘Wow, you are so good with the amendments, no one does the amendments like you.’ So I got that all taken care of.”

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 个月前

      He actually already opened an office to review and attempt to take away citizenship from people who already earned it, back in 2020.

    • Srh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 个月前

      The Supreme Court in historically (and I can only imagine the current court will be the worst so far) has never been able to count to 14 much less interperate it.

  • MetalMachine@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 个月前

    This would be huge. Much like Europe, America’s population will decline. You need immigrants.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 个月前

      Immigrants are the heart and soul of this country. I can’t even imagine wanting to live in whatever milquetoast, boring-ass, white bread America that these idiots want.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 个月前

      It’s not gonna happen. It would open up challenges to constitutional amendments that he and his supporters care about.

      • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 个月前

        He doesn’t care about the constitution. Like not even a little. He has said as much when he called for the termination of the constitution in 2022.

        • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 个月前

          Plenty of his supporters care about the 2nd amendment. Trump is extremely thin-skinned when it comes to his popularity and self-preservation.

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 个月前

    I am not a lawyer, this is my interpretation of the situation.

    So heres what I think will happen.

    Birthright citizenship will not be completely gone.

    To recap, 14th Amendment, Section1 says:

    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.

    What will most likely happen is the DoJ under trump will take it to the supreme court, then the 6 conservatives will rule that unauthorized immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, so therefore their children do not get citizenship at birth. Maybe this is retroactive, maybe it applies from then on, I don’t know.

    But thats the most likely scenario.

    Because we had a very conservative court back in the 1898 (remember, black people in this era couldn’t even vote in southern states) that ruled that (United States v. Wong Kim Ark)

    a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.

    So I doubt this supreme court is more conservative than a 1898 supreme court so they most likely are not overturning that.

    Basically, that court ruled that children of permanent residents have birthright citizenship, but never ruled on whether children of unauthorized immigrants have birthright citizenship. This 6-3 supreme court is gonna answer that. Which is gonna be a no, unfortunately.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 个月前

      More likely, a lower court shoots it down, and there’s no basis for an appeals court to do anything different. They tweak it and try again. That one also fails. Try again.

      Eventually, they get something that threads the needle. This is how the “Muslim ban” went.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 个月前

          There are two other factors at work:

          • A bunch of conservative-related businesses know what a clusterfuck it will be for their bottom line; that will push the Supreme Court to pretend there’s no issue here
          • The Supreme Court can only take so many cases at a time

          Even if we assume they’re just going to bypass the usual ladder up the federal court system, they can’t do that on everything just as a practical matter.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 个月前

      I enjoy the notion that they would argue that undocumented immigrants are not subject to US law in the fashion that diplomats aren’t subject to US law, since that would effectively prevent anything except deportation as a punishment for crimes.
      “Your children can’t be citizens, but you can murder with impunity until we ask you to leave”.

    • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 个月前

      I concur with your interpretation. But as for your final line, I’m not sure why this interpretation is unfortunate. We need to streamline and overhaul the immigration process for sure, but why is encouraging unregulated immigration a good thing?

      • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 个月前

        I say unfortunately because there could be problems with a child of an undocumented immigrant that is born and grew up in the US for their entire life, then suddenly losing their citizenship because of a court decision.

        Maybe if the decision did not apply retroactively, then I’d might be okay with it.

        • NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 个月前

          Oh yeah, that’s definitely a bad outcome, I agree. Thankfully retroactive laws seem to be much harder to pass.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 个月前

    What I’m reading is that they want to deport Americans in “mixed status families”, and then go after them as criminals when they don’t just continue paying taxes and fulfilling the ridiculous reporting requirements as they try to resettle their life in a new home and the US demands that their new local residence actually be treated as foreign assets. Which is great for the rich, because it basically saturates the system in such a way that the focus is taken away from rich tax evaders and tax avoidance schemes as it is driven to deal with these new “criminals”.

    Ending birthright citizenship would lead to a lot of relief from the people leaving the US who are seeking renunciation - except I have a feeling that greed and the aforementioned reasons are going to find a way to still make them have to seek it.