The Dreamers should stay.

Unless they were born after February 20, 2025, it doesn't apply to them (or anyone else born prior to that date).

So frankly his responses are just blowin' in the wind.

As to the plans released, and the executive order, neither have anything to do with any child born before 2/20/2025.

The EO was drafted very carefully to have the best chance of succeeding in getting the ludicrous proposition through the Supreme Court. It relies on a phrase that has not yet been interpreted (so there isn't any stare decisis to worry about). It only applies going forward (so it doesn't raise implementation problems arising out of grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. potentially not being citizens. It excludes a very limited number of people - those with the most tenuous connection to the United States. Because far better legal minds than Trump drafted it (and the implementing orders) with the goal of actually being upheld, they aren't going to widen it unless they win at the Supreme Court.

Every formal explanation as stayed very close to the original EO.

Yet people repeatedly - despite it being explained several times for each iteration - keep suggesting that the executive order destroys citizenship for nearly everyone - or that Melania and Barron will need to be deported, etc. That crap is not Trump's responses - it is stuff people on our side - who haven't actually read the executive order - are saying. And it's not helpful.

and changes his mind all the time. The Court has backed him up many times as well. Can't believe that despite all the nice legalese, nothing is set in stone in any order he makes

He didn't write the citizenship executive order - it was written by someone who wanted the best chance for it to actually succeed in the courts and become the official interpretation of the birthright citizenship clause. Not a single change has been made since it was introduced in January. The implementation plans precisely track the executive order. Expanding it at all would put any chance that has of happening in jeopardy. You've seen how the courts have reacted to even this minimal change (only small group of infants, with the most tenuous connection to the US, only going forward). It will be a stretch for the court to adopt - even as limited as it is. So it's not going to change until the court has a chance to rule on it. Right now, in its original format, in this court, is the best chance they are likely to have to make a real change in decades. They aren't going to blow it. This isn't being driven by Trump.

As far as blowing in the wind - this isn't like Tariffs - regardless of how many changes he makes, it is still the same basic legal question - does he have authority under the emergency declarations to impose them?

Same with deportations - same basic question, no matter who he targets, no matter how many - still the same basic legal questions.

How is anything he does legal? How? With every breath, he and his thugs break the law and no one stops them .

He’s treating the White House and its grounds like a private club he bought as-is and is “renovating” and “redecorating. “ He got impeached not once but twice, and got away with it. He fomented an insurrection and got away with it. Norms? What norms? Turns out they were a gentleman’s handshake in the late 1700s, not laws with teeth. Even laws with teeth get ignored. He is openly soliciting bribes from law firms, universities, major media — and voila, my god how the money rolls in. He’s been convicted by juries of 34 felonies, and has suffered no consequences that a corrupt billionaire cannot deal with. Imagine being an ordinary juror ruling against trump — and seeing that. No one seems able to stop him.

The Sleazy 6 on SCOTUS seems fully on board with this. They’ve done a lot of things that have appalled me — but having lived through Watergate and Nixon, where I thought “we” settled the issue of Presidential immunity, to have the Sleazy 6 declare in favor of Trump that he, Trump, is above the law — well, never mind.

I’m just an ordinary person, and I used to be a big believer in The Law and “a nation of laws, not men. “ Sorry for the rant. Really, I am.

Please identify a single thing he has changed since the January 6 order - despite all of the chaos in virtually everything else he has touched.

This is a long-time dream of folks like Stephen Miller, and it was very carefully crafted to have the best chance to succeed. They aren't going to change it, because doing so would make it more likely just chaos - with no real change. The goal here is real change.

His interactions with law firms, universities, immigrants, are all designed (1) to flood the end zone so that no one has time to react, (2) take advantage of our lookback review of the law (laws aren't pre-approved for constitutionality - as a general rule once an unconstitutional law (or executive order) is passed, someone has to be hurt before the law can be tested to (3) implement social/political change by brute force. He is being remarkably successful because of his strategies - and because the traditional firewalls aren't holding. I expected congress to cave. I expected media to stand firm - or at least for some portion of it to stand firm - virtually none are. I expected universities to hold firm - virtually none are. Even Harvard, which started in the right direction, seems to be caving. I expected law firms to hold - and they are caving. I expected the courts to hold - but be unable to keep up with the pace - and for the most part that is what I'm seeing. The losses at the Supreme Court are largely because the Supreme Court is not designed to step in on an emergency basis - and also acts as a barrier to lower courts deciding the merits without deciding the merits by issuing very broad injunctions.

The reconstruction of the White House isn't abnormal. Many presidents alter it during their term. He is particularly tacky in what he is doing - but he isn't alone in either altering it - or in being criticized for doing it. Arthur added gilded Victorian styling, Roosevelt added the east wing, a pool, and a bunker. Nixon covered the pool up. Ford built a new outdoor one. Truman entirely rebuilt much of the white house (moving to Blair house during the work) - including adding the Truman balcony.

It is incredibly discouraging - but don't lose the story line in all of the chaos Trump is creating. Nothing has changed (or is likely to change) as to the citizenship birthright issue until after it reaches the Supreme Court. And even with this court, I don't see Trump winning. The majority of the lower court substantive decisions have been against Trump - it is just that the system isn't designed to work by injunction, which works well when we have a semi-normal person as president.

By people who spent a lot of time thinking through the best strategy to make this change.

Unlike Trump, who just spouts off about any old random thought that crosses his mind.

(Explanation for the multiple edits: posted as an image because DU refuses to post the actual text

This will be replaced by my response, if this actually posts. I've been getting 403 errors and some danish/english page translation.

ETA #1: Still getting 403 error for the substance of the post.

ETA #2: Third attempt

ETA #2: Fourth attempt - I'll try posting my response as a reply to my post.

ETA#4: Same response when I posted as a response to my reply - and when I tried to run spellcheck. I've now retyped it.

ETA #5: I give up. Even retyping the text gives a 403 error (despite being able to respond and edit using different words, as well as post in a different thread). If someone in the support or help forums can figure it out, I'll try a 6th time.

ETA #6: I've found a work-around - an image of what I was trying to post.)

If the parents are not subject to the jurisdiction of the nation, then wouldn't they have immunity from prosecution for violating traffic laws and other laws in the country?

but, unfortunately, it has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I can't imagine them agreeing to the ludicrous interpretation, but in recent years I've been wrong about which way they will rule.

There are way too many far right Republican men, many of them connected to Project 2025 and the birthright citizen nonsense who have a penchant for marrying nice foreign (or recent immigrant) women. Aside from the legal issues, they don't want to put their spouses at risk.

Aside from it being my daughter's birthday 30 years ago.

for the children it will impact - i.e. children born more than 30 days after the (January 20, 2025) date of the executive order.

For a price. No worries

So long as they worship Trump.

Ivana’s adult kids. She wasn’t a citizen when they were born here in the US. Shouldn’t they be thrown out too?

[To that end, USCIS declared flatly that the children of immigrants who are “unlawfully present” will “no longer be U.S. citizens at birth.”]

Regarding the "no longer..." language. Does this mean ONLY going forward, OR do they envision this can be applied retroactively?

Or the numerous other threads on this issue since the EO was signed.

It applies ONLY to people born February 20, 2025 or later.

Just read the EO. With a reasonable SCOTUS, it would never stand up. But now - who the fuck knows?

If the parents aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, I'm now sure how we have any authority over them (for criminal matters, for example).

He owns the conservatives on the court.Lock,Stock and barrel.

This argument is a real stretch, with a lot of real world implications, if the court decides that they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States (in the same way diplomats and their kin aren't). Ordinary criminal laws cannot be enforced against those who are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. So if their children are declared non-citizens based on the reasoning advocated, the undocumented immigrants cannot be charged with violation of a single criminal charge - so they are free to rape, loot, murder, with no consequences. I can't see the Supreme Court taking that position.

I have a daughter-in-law born here but her parents were from Mexico and not citizens. Pretty sure they gained green cards maybe 10 years ago, so I am not sure they have ever become citizens. Lovely people. I so hope they are protected.

Unlike Trump, the person who wrote the executive order has decent legal knowledge. I thing it is a big stretch - even with this Supreme Court, and even limiting its application to children not yet born when the order was signed.

But applying it retroactively would be logistically impossible - and that is one of the things the court does take into account. It would be virtually impossible to apply it retroactively because of the need to prove not only that (taking the easiest case of the options) at least one parent was a citizen - but that also at least one parent of that parent (one grandparent in the same line), and one parent of that grandparent (i.e. one great-grandparent in the same line). I know my great-grandparents - and the citizenship of all of them (in fact I can trace my geneology back multiple generations on both sides since 3 of 4 grandparent's generations had someone who did the work of tracing the family tree). But many people can't - so determining citizenship based on one's ancestors through several generations is impossible, as a practical matter.

To address that question - that would otherwise be raised by challengers, the drafters of the EO eliminated it: The interpretation only applies going forward.

There are other things built into the EO which - as someone who has spent a lot of time judging moot court competitions - were obviously written to make it as palatable as possible if the court is inclined to adopt Trump's interpretation. One of the things you do when you are trying to change what everyone assumes the law means is to just stretch it a little (a small class - those who have no legal right to be in the US AND who aren't the co-parent with anyone with a legal right to be in the US) - and to address practical concerns about the new interpretation.

That said - I don't see how they can claim - on the one hand - that the US does not have jurisdiction over these parents, and on the other hand it does (it can convict them - unlike the children of foreign dignitaries whom we actually have no jurisdiction over and we can deport them). But now is the best time (given the court make-up) - so it is a now or never Hail Mary.

I would be more worried about your DIL's parents. Green cards and other legal statuses can be changed under some circumstances, and Trump is pushing the limits in those areas. Unlike the birthright citizenship (carefully crafted challenge they hope will succeed), with changing legal status they are employing a flood-the-endzone stragegy. Their plan is less to change the law (or the interpretation of the law) but to create chaos, make those brown folks feel unwelcome and unsettled so they will leave, etc. Even if they lose every court battle, how many people seeking refuge here will ever (or at least in the foreseeable future) will feel safe here?

I had not followed any of the details of how the order was written. The explanation of why it isn't broader than that makes sense.

I hope our in-laws don't get any traffic tickets. They've been here decades, raised three daughters here and have seven grandkids. They've both dealt with cancer and are incredibly hard-working, valued employees.

And allowing birthright citizenship for children of valid visa holders but not of undocumented parents?
Kinda of curious how they interpret this.

The whole question of jurisdiction is ridiculous on face value. I also don’t understand how the SC would permit such a massive change without any congressional approval, but I didn’t realize this much power would exist solely with the executive branch, overturning decades of interpretation of the fourteenth amendment.

So if the father is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident it doesn't matter. If the father isn't a citizen or lawful permanent resident, then unless the mother has a similar lawful permanent resident status, the child isn't automatically a citizen by virtue of birth. So no distinction between visa holders and undocumented immigrants in the executive order. It is possible the court would split the difference, but if they give at all on this issue, it creates a lot more issues for those people it determines are not "under the jurisdiction" of the United States.

I agree that the question is ridiculous (all people in this country are under the jurisdiction of the US, aside from foreign dignitaries and their spouses and offspring - any other interpretation leads to ridiculous consequences).

But one legitimate use of Executive Orders is to declare how it intends to enforce laws (including the constitution). Recent administrations (from both parties) have increasingly used it to create policy and implement policy outside of Congress. So what happened here is that Trump (via whoever wrote the EO declared how it was going to interpret/enforce the birthright citizenship. It doesn't (on its face) conflict with any existing interpretation of the provision - because it focuses on a phrase not yet interpreted. It is now up to the Supreme Court to agree with him or smack him upside his head.

As to interpretation of the constitution, Congress has no role - that is ultimately the exclusive right of the Supreme Court. The law, unfortunately with an rash idiot like Trump in office, works retroactively. If Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can't review it until someone who is harmed (or potentially harmed) files a suit. If Trump declares, via executive order, that it is going to interpret a provision of the constitution in a certain manner, the Supreme Court can't review it until someone who is harmed (or potentially harmed) files a suit. What is different about this administration is the flood the endzone approach. They are writing so many executive orders with constitutional implications that the measured, step-by-step, intellectual approach (the hallmark of the court system) can't keep up.

(with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

But changes in how the existing constitution is interpreted (i.e. not a new law) is treated differently than a new law. As to the application of the constitution in a criminal context, it is a two-step process. They first decide the correct interpretation going forward. Then, generally in a later case, they determine whether it only applies going forward, or also applies retroactively.

Here, the issue isn't - on its face - a criminal matter. Usually they would wait to decide any criminal implications that come up later (like whether a child born into the United States who is not a citizen is guilty of being in the United without legal right to be here (a misdemeanor).

But keep on defending it?

The order is strictly limited to children born February 20, or later.

(That doesn't mean life won't be hard as a person who is brown - because until they are stopped no one who isn't cis-white-with enough income to retain an attorney can live a life relatively free of harassment. But there is no danger under the citizenship executive order for anyone born February 20 or later.)

Is there someone born after 2/20/25 they want to apply it to?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

All of this traces back to his January 20, 2025 executive order. What was issued recently are proposed guidelines for enforcing it (which track the executive order pretty precisely - with just how are we gonna make it work details).

is blowing in he wind.

The phrase "the answer is blowing in the wind" from Bob Dylan's song suggests that the solutions to significant social issues, such as civil rights and war, are elusive and not easily grasped. Dylan's lyrics reflect a sense of frustration with humanity's passivity in addressing these problems, indicating that the answers are present but often ignored. In an interview, Dylan himself stated that he felt the answer was simply out there, emphasizing the need for awareness and action.


https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=dc5a456c9384492d9de1f1aac4d286c3d3a38ac479873cd04143e1dd9b97e0d4JmltdHM9MTc1MzkyMDAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3e31da32-2592-6db1-3b41-cc1224466c60&psq=the+answer+is+blowing+in+the+wind+meaning&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9wb2VtYW5hbHlzaXMuY29tL2JvYi1keWxhbi9ibG93aW4taW4tdGhlLXdpbmQv&ntb=1

especially one debunked in the thread you are linked to isn't helpful. It only applies to those born February 20, 2025 or later.

There's enough horrendous deportation madness going on without inventing scenarios in which most of us would not be citizens, and would be subject to deportation.

Eric better be careful !

The executive order (and these proposals for implementing it) applies only to those born February 20, 2025 or later.

while Felon47 and his billionaire donors sit on the White (gold?) House Mar-A-Lego ex-Rose Garden concrete patio cheering at the gory spectacle.

their civil rights and enforce THEIR will, sometimes incrementally and by stealth.

Like they've done re abortion, voting, freedom of speech, protest, etc. etc.

So don't depend on who they CLAIM it won't apply to.

The moment one accepts the chiseling away of birthright citizenship is the PRECISE moment one climbs into the boat WITH them.

So don't depend on who they CLAIM it won't apply to.

TY B.See.

It's just a matter of time before they start changing the date.

those who THEY decide fall into the category of "don't belong."

as in, not "real"Americans.

Don't be surprised when you/we FIND OUT who that 'll be.

Many of these fkrs already believe Native Americans and native born minorites aren't 'real' Americans. So....

respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

They cannot apply the new law retroactively.

If they try and retroactively strip me of my citizenship (I am only a US citizen by accident of birth in Los Angeles, neither of my parents were US citizens or permanent residents, they were in Los Angeles from London, working as bankers on work visas) they owe me a shedload of taxes refunded.

The US and Eritrea (and the rate in Eritrea is very very small) are the only 2 nations on the planet who tax based off citizenship. In other words, the US taxes you on all foreign income earned even if you do not live in the US.

There is an inflation-adjusted (yearly) standard exclusion. For 2024 income it was $126,500, but all income above that is taxed. I have never earned taxable income whilst I lived in the US (from birth to almost 2 years old, then several years in the mid to late 2010s whilst I read for my MBA, again living in LA) BUT I have been smashed with income tax on non US income (above the standard exemption) that occurred whilst I was NOT even living in the US.

If I am ex post facto (which, again, is unconstitutional, see above) stripped of my American citizenship, I am damn well going to take legal action to get those illegally ('illegally' as at that point I would have never been a US citizen under the new law, and thus never subject to US tax law) taxed monies back.

like the way slaves' children were automatically also slaves?

to the Nuremburg trials for the crimes being committed by these goons.
Democrats need to run on this!

Yes! The Trumpers are guilty of crimes against humanity! Reasonable people can agree on this.

If I recall correctly from back when I was in college (more than a half century ago). in the Nuremburg trials, the Nazis did not have to break any laws to be found guilty of crimes against humanity, and jailed or executed.

The Magats day will come, maybe not in my lifetime, but it will come. Ripping babies from their mothers arms, even when done by ICE or Homeland Security, is a crime against humanity.

will allow the constitution to be ignored.

To have their children. More midwives and home births.

I don't know but I think I'd try asking for asylum in Canada. Are they checking cars going into Canada or just coming in to US from Canada?

Just think about that, asking for asylum from harm from the UNITED STATES.

I’m adopted (basically from birth). Wonder when they’ll start coming after people like me?

I was always proud to say. ""Anyone born here is an American even if their parents were sorry ass Republicans."

Not sure of their status then. In fact, I am not at all sure of their status now.

So they are at risk and so is she. Then if her citizenship is stripped from her, what would that mean for their five children ages 9, 7, 5, 3, and 6 weeks?

Their dad is white but not their mom and they are a beautiful blend of both parents with a beautiful light brown skin tone. This racist administration thinks anybody whose skin isn't white is dirty. I shudder to think where this is going for all of us.

And if the Supremes keep validating his actions, then they are doing the same thing. It becomes meaningless.

Our country is becoming a shadow of its former self.

Does that mean Barron has to GTFO?

Melania wasn’t naturalized at the time she gave birth.

Trump's perfect judge... Roland Freisler
Such a keen legal mind that he put into law that original citizenship could be revoked...
Start approx 1:53 on the timeline.

?t=113

since neither of his parents were born in this country.........................

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump

Criminals, etc. But here we are deporting american citizens with no criminal history on the daily.

But continue defending him, and how he cant do this or that. So, what happens when he rounds up 10,000 children, and dumps them in 10 countries around the world? Will we have a court order saying he has to bring them home? Oh he will get right on that one.

Our side deserves to lose. Weak.

ancestors settled the Braintree colony and James Town, fought in the American Revolution and most of the wars since then, I want the architects of this to DIE NOW!

... and fuck "procedure"; he has to be stopped and so do the Sinister Six that are enabling him on the SCOTUS. This is unforgivable, and it's only the beginning. If you think he's going stop here, then you probably need help tying your shoes.
And there is an especially deep hole in Hell awaiting Stephen "Nosferatu" Miller. He has singlehandedly redefined the meaning of pure, malignant evil.

These children will be consigned to a living hell. They will be neither citizens of the US or of their parents’ homeland. If the family is deported, the parents’ home country will have the right to reject the child because it is not a citizen there either.

If the family is not caught by ICE and stays in the US, the child cannot attend school without a birth certificate. They cannot obtain a Social Security number to work. They can never vote or get a passport, even though the 14th Amendment says they are citizens.

The depravity of Trump and Stephen Miller has no bottom.

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.

Article V of the Preamble:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;....................

It sure looks to me like neither the executive nor the Supreme Court can mess around with the text of any of the Amendments to the Constitution, including the birthright clause of the 14th Amendment.

:

This combined with the rescission of rules against ICE enforcement in hospitals and rulings limiting family separation mean hospital maternity wards are going to be ground zero of disappearing parents and stealing babies.

This is going to be worse than Argentina's "dirty war". https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/jan/16/tracing-stolen-children-of-argentina-dirty-war

Worse than Putin's child theft. https://fpc.org.uk/three-years-on-ukraines-stolen-children-the-silent-crisis-that-threatens-the-future/

If the mother is undocumented or has a temp visa, but the father is unknown? He could have been a citizen. What is the child’s status?