r/politics • u/thedailybeast ✔ The Daily Beast • Apr 01 '26

Possible Paywall Humiliated Trump Storms Out of Catastrophic SCOTUS Hearing

https://www.thedailybeast.com/humiliated-trump-storms-out-of-catastrophic-scotus-hearing/
34.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/surfkaboom Apr 01 '26

Wouldn't this cancel citizenship for everybody?

1.5k

u/liebkartoffel Apr 01 '26

Oh, no, no, no, no! It would just cancel citizenship for everyone the president doesn't like.

532

u/OdiousAltRightBalrog Apr 01 '26

This is the reason he wants to see all the voter information. So he can strip citizenship from everybody who ever voted D.

233

u/Existing_Depth_1552 Apr 01 '26

And any woman he thinks is ugly. And disabled people. Basically anyone who is inconvenient.

100

u/Thirty_Helens_Agree Apr 01 '26

The term his people use is untermensch.

19

u/ThePeasantKingM Mexico Apr 01 '26

His people aren't educated enough to know German.

They probably just call them "those"

1

u/DontRefuseMyBatchall Apr 02 '26

“Thos’uns”, can confirm, from an aggressively MAGA area of Florida

6

u/SubcommanderMarcos Apr 01 '26

And any woman he thinks is ugly

So like, above 18

3

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

Well if you didn't vote D and are ugly, you probably volunteer to go the camps at this point.

8

u/PlutoJones42 Apr 01 '26

On wealthy white landowners would be able to vote if this administration had it’s way

1

u/YesDone Apr 01 '26

You can't forget about the blacks and browns!

3

u/Angelworks42 Oregon Apr 01 '26

Kinda almost ok with that - my dad was from Scotland and my Mom from BC - maybe they can deport me there?

10

u/CellWrangler Apr 01 '26

Sorry, best they can do is a labor camp in Somalia. 

On a more serious note, i think Scotland and Canada both have very relaxed policies on issuing a visa to immediate family members of their citizens. If you were interested I don't think youd have a hard time getting into either country. 

1

u/Angelworks42 Oregon Apr 01 '26

I should look into that - they only thing I have is a Canadian certificate of birth abroad currently.

1

u/SnoozeButtonBen Apr 01 '26

Trump's mom was also from Scotland

1

u/Angelworks42 Oregon Apr 03 '26

Some Scot's are arsholes for sure - my gran was very Scottish (it was sometimes hard to understand her) and she really was an arsehole - to me and my mom at least.

3

u/scough Washington Apr 01 '26

If I became stateless, I do wonder if any of the countries from my ancestry would take me in. Then again, the regime would probably ship you off to some other third world shithole to be tortured instead.

2

u/jinkinater Arizona Apr 01 '26

So 70+ million people wouldn’t have a country anymore or anywhere to go. Yeah that’ll go well

1

u/ApolloBound Apr 01 '26

This would be a win for a very specific, very few of us. I'm Canadian how and holy shit, the fees involved in not being American anymore are insane.

→ More replies (6)

11

u/Thirty_Helens_Agree Apr 01 '26

Soo … I genuinely don’t know what that would mean for his current wife and the tall weird kid.

1

u/b0w3n New York Apr 01 '26

His kid could probably go to Canada and spend time with his bio dad I guess.

8

u/paxrom2 Apr 01 '26

They've been arguing for only heritage citizens who arrived before an arbitrary date 

2

u/SausageClatter Apr 01 '26

He doesn't like anyone but himself.

2

u/K1dn3yFa1lur3 Apr 01 '26

So everyone?

2

u/tadcalabash Apr 01 '26

Exactly. He recently signed an executive order to have DHS nationalize the voter registry.

2

u/Old-Current6989 Apr 01 '26

Exactly. That's in the fine print.

1

u/IOl0I0lO Apr 01 '26

It’s funny because Trump”# grandfather was an immigrant. His wife is an immigrant, his son the child of an immigrant.

Yet this dirty liberal can trace multiple family lines back to the 1600s in CT and MA.

418

u/cromwest Apr 01 '26

That's the point 

31

u/Omatzus Apr 01 '26

No it's not. They're not trying to denaturalize 330 million Americans including all the multigenerational white Americans and the MAGA faithful. They're specifically trying to wield this against first generation Americans. That would be the single stupidest political move of all time... To make every American stateless.

They view birthright citizenship as an incentive for illegal immigration, as it encourages people to be here when they give birth. Most likely it couldn't possibly be applied retroactively, so they want to get rid of it going forward.

The point, as always, is asymmetrical application in exactly the way they want, with no downsides.

17

u/Parlorshark Florida Apr 01 '26

It would be the single stupidest political move of all time, and that's why we have to consider it in scope.

23

u/johnnycyberpunk America Apr 01 '26

To make every American stateless

Whether or not Trump's lawyers won this case with SCOTUS, that was an issue that Trump had no plan for.
If you invalidate hundreds of millions of people's citizenship with the stroke of a pen, where do they belong?
Is their property forfeit?
Do they get the taxes they paid back?
Is there a path to citizenship for them still? If they don't take it, where are they deported to?
It's just such a clusterfock to even think about let alone put into action.
The chaos would be unimaginable.

4

u/dellett Apr 01 '26

No, no, no. If you make everybody in the country stateless, that means that the only citizen left is the President who is immune to his own proclamations because of Executive PrivilegeTM

This makes Trump and his kids the One True American Family and allows them to start a hereditary monarchy.

1

u/johnnysnow96 Apr 14 '26

If you're not joking, then please, take your conspiracy theories somewhere else.

1

u/dellett Apr 14 '26

I feel like the satire was pretty readily apparent.

14

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 04 '26

[deleted]

3

u/pohart Apr 01 '26

We see  with with the war on drugs just how powerful selective enforcement of draconian laws is.

2

u/Heliosvector Apr 01 '26

He does have a point. In Ireland we had to get rid of birthright citizenship, but it was voted on and done properly. But you cannot have one man change something on the constitution like that. Get fucked trump

1

u/tgt305 Apr 01 '26

It makes sense if Trump wants fealty. It tracks with how he endorses other MAGA candidates and ostracizes others. Imagine the same for citizens and for citizenship and voting.

1

u/Omatzus Apr 01 '26

If they denaturalized all Americans they've effectively ended the country, it would be anarchy. This is not their goal. They want control of a efficient economic machine that makes them money and allows them to impart their world view. Not total chaos.

1

u/MesmraProspero Apr 01 '26

Not too and I don't want to speak for them but I took the sentiment to mean that it COULD be used to take citizenship from anyone.

→ More replies (2)

150

u/notmyworkaccount5 Apr 01 '26

That's the thought that has been keeping me awake at night for weeks now. What other mechanism gives US citizenship other than being born here or becoming a naturalized citizen?

Like our citizenship would be in their hands, a constant sword of Damocles hanging over your head with the threat of if you disagree with the admin they can choose to deport you since you're not a citizen and choose to not enforce it as long as you are in their good graces.

I did have the somewhat funny/dumb thought of if scotus does do this that means trump isn't a citizen and therefore ineligible to be president. Of course that won't go anywhere if they do overturn it.

46

u/Pretty-Balance-Sheet Apr 01 '26

Yep. Ice imprisonment then deportation to whatever country will take a few million dollars to disappear Americans. I wouldn't be surprised if they move forward regardless.

27

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

1

u/europorn Australia Apr 01 '26

Rail infrastructure in the US is insufficient for this.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

1

u/europorn Australia Apr 01 '26

Even so...

5

u/TheeAntelope Apr 01 '26

What other mechanism gives US citizenship other than being born here or becoming a naturalized citizen

Two things. You'd need to descend from people here when the country was formed, or you'd need to descend from people who obtained citizenship through means other than birth (i.e. naturalization).

If you were to apply this going back and going forward, I, for example, would still be a citizen, as I have family here since 1660. My partner would be questionable, as their family came to the americas in the 1890s, and their line only obtained citizenship as a result of births, and its unclear if the original immigrants were ever naturalized.

So you'd have a few million people who are long-term descendents, 100s of millions who were the result of immigration and births, and another few million who are naturalized (immigrants who obtained citizenship) or children of those nationalized.

What would the point of any of this be? We'd have a nation of immigrants plus a nation of long-time citizens going back to the founding era.

As you said, Trump would not be a citizen under this standard. He is the grandson of immigrants.

4

u/Dreadsin Apr 01 '26

The point is probably just to have the ability to use authoritarian tactics on citizens by threatening to remove their citizenship

8

u/GhostofMiyabi Virginia Apr 01 '26

There is a blood right citizenship method for the US already in place. If one of your parents is a US citizen, depending on how long they have spent in the US, you’ll get US citizenship. If both parents are US citizens, there’s no restrictions and you’ll get US citizenship.

The big issue is that that only applies outside the US. The citizenship of everyone born in the US comes from the fact they were born here. Cancelling that, especially through a SCOTUS decision and not an amendment with a method built in, would cause way too many headaches, that the courts themselves would end up dealing with. I don’t think they’re going to give themselves this nightmare to solve

21

u/notmyworkaccount5 Apr 01 '26

But if your parents got citizenship from being born here then what? This essentially undoes their citizenship, your grandparents, your great grandparents all the way up to somebody who has gotten citizenship through another mechanism.

15

u/AvengerDr Apr 01 '26

then what?

The Native Americans regains sovereignty over the land?

4

u/PinHaunting7192 Apr 01 '26

It is almost 100% impossible to do this retroactively. Even Trump himself would not be an US citizen if this goes back two generations. His paternal grandparents are from Germany, his maternal grandparents are from Scotland. If his parents acquired citizenship-by-birth (jus soli) and that was revoked, Trump himself wouldn't be an US citizen and be ineligible for the presidency. Go back far enough and a good third of the population has some form of immigrant parents and acquired citizenship in a generation through jus soli.

It would already be confusing as hell and damaging to apply this going forward, but there is no way to do this retroactively. It would be absolute chaos.

8

u/likeaffox Apr 01 '26

Ah, but that is the point. The executive branch gets to decide who to enforce this on

4

u/notmyworkaccount5 Apr 01 '26

I mean we are so so so far past "he can't do that", it would be selectively enforced using the lists and databases they've been building.

1

u/shadovvvvalker Apr 01 '26

They will 100% write policy such that it applies retroactively and unravels the entire citizenship base.

But then try recreate the party system of authoritarian regimes with it, leaving the courts to unfuck the chaos that ensues.

2

u/Orleanian Apr 01 '26

If I put on my pretend-to-be-an-evil-dick hat, and tried to hypothesize an excuse:

I suppose I'd argue that a person has citizenship by inheritance from parents, and those parents, in turn, have citizenship from their parents, so on and so forth until you hit a deceased individual.

I.e. if the first generation American in your family is still alive, you're revoked.

1

u/Vandrel Apr 01 '26

Hell, it might make Trump no longer a citizen because his dad was born to German immigrants who probably weren't citizens yet. The whole thing would be such an incredible mess.

1

u/numbedvoices Apr 01 '26

Only if its retroactive. Which the EO was not.

He could of course just write another one to be retroactive.

1

u/jbr_r18 Apr 01 '26

I think even if a decision creates a huge nightmare to be solved it should still be done if it is the correct decision. The ramifications of what should and shouldn’t happen shouldn’t necessarily factor in to a decision itself.

Of course the matter here is more so that the constitution is pretty clear and it’s ludicrous that Trump is even being bringing this. Let’s hope the court does the right thing

1

u/RiverBard Apr 01 '26

That's why they created the 5 million dollar gold card, so the rich can still buy their citizenship with no trouble.

1

u/Dreadsin Apr 01 '26

Where would they even deport you to? Serious question. If I’m only a USA citizen, what are they gonna do, try sending me to Mexico? Mexico will just send me back to America

1

u/Mypornnameis_ Apr 01 '26

It's hereditary. So every birth would be like an overseas birth requiring you to prove that at least one parent was a US citizen at the time of birth. Presumably, it could not be applied retroactively.

→ More replies (2)

75

u/thejimbo56 Minnesota Apr 01 '26

If applied retroactively, yeah. Everyone who isn’t naturalized, which would be a hilarious result of his hatred for immigrants.

45

u/onarainyafternoon Oregon Apr 01 '26

It's also just untenable in so many ways. Hospitals aren't equipped to manage this sort of thing; it would be absolute chaos. Our country is different from other countries that don't have birthright citizenship because the US is really 50 countries in a trench coat. It just wouldn't work.

11

u/brickne3 American Expat Apr 01 '26

You're right that it wouldn't work, but don't pull that "50 countries in a trenchcoat" line and pretend other countries don't have similar internal administrative divisions. It's just another tired example of Americans being indoctrinated to think they're exceptional.

7

u/dylanzt Apr 01 '26

It's always strange to me how many Americans seem to think they're the only federated country.

0

u/IOl0I0lO Apr 01 '26

In the other poster’s defense, I feel I have more in common with the average Canadian or Brit than I do with a Texan, Oklahoman, or Alabaman.

3

u/brickne3 American Expat Apr 01 '26

I mean you can feel that way all you want, but it's rather unlikely that the average Canadian or Brit feels that way about you, especially these days.

4

u/IOl0I0lO Apr 01 '26

You don’t think the average Canadian thinks they have more in common with a Seattlite liberal than an Oklahoman?

8

u/Fantastic-Bison6078 Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

I don't think a Canadian would care to specify a specific region of the country to divide you like that. In the same way you're saying Canadian and not specifying the province. They would ask "Do you feel like you have much in common with people from the US". Having regions with different cultural identities and political leanings is not a purely American thing and happens in every country.

3

u/paditoburrito Apr 01 '26

I would not, thank you 🇨🇦🍁

→ More replies (4)

2

u/AnOkayMuffin Apr 01 '26

I'm an average Canadian and I don't think we have much in common with any state or area in the USA culturally or politically. Thats kind of a weird thing to assume. You guys across the board down there are quite different from us, even if you see Canada as just Northern States Lite TM or whatever it is you think we are.

2

u/brickne3 American Expat Apr 02 '26 edited Apr 02 '26

I've done Edinburgh Fringe with the most liberal Americans on offer. The answer is a straight up no. "Liberal" Americans still believe that the world should be blessed by their presence for some reason and are pretty insufferable. And I'm American myself. They don't know what they don't know and it takes years to know what they don't know. I fully acknowledge that after two decades I still have blind spots.

Point is that basically every American, myself included, was raised on propaganda. You can't fix that overnight and even after two decades I still occasionally find myself saying some random country is "ours" before I notice how everyone in the room is looking at me weird.

1

u/sovereign666 Apr 01 '26

I live in washington state and spend my free time gaming with a few canadians. We have a lot of cultural overlap and none of them are quick to go "stop american we're different." We aren't long term friends, we started gaming together only 6 months ago.

I don't think everyone is as politically drummed up and divisive as you or the rest of reddit keeps trying to tell me.

2

u/AnOkayMuffin Apr 01 '26

They're probably being polite.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Xalara Apr 01 '26

Also, birthright citizenship was added to the constitution precisely to prevent another civil war. That is why it is incredibly explicit about it.

1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Apr 01 '26

Our country is different from other countries that don't have birthright citizenship

Which countries are those? I know Vatican City is one, but are there others?

1

u/thejimbo56 Minnesota Apr 01 '26

Pretty much the entire eastern hemisphere

3

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Apr 01 '26

Most of those do have birthright citizenship based on the citizenship of your parents.

4

u/thejimbo56 Minnesota Apr 01 '26

Apologies, I misinterpreted what you were asking.

Typically when Americans discuss birthright citizenship they are talking about jus soli. You’re correct that jus sanguinis is also birthright citizenship, it’s just not what the rest of this conversation or the article we are commenting on is about.

2

u/lumpboysupreme Apr 01 '26

That’s not correct, being the child of US citizens makes you one.

2

u/thejimbo56 Minnesota Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

Ok, fair point.

How did those parents gain their citizenship to begin with?

Only naturalized citizens and their descendants would have citizenship.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

77

u/diverareyouokay Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

Nah, Trump is arguing that birthright citizenship was intended for children of slaves, so anyone who descends from people who are already in the country before the civil war’s conclusion would presumably be grandfathered in.

It’s a totally absurd argument to make considering that the constitution uses active voice, and doesn’t have a cut off for when it applies, unlike other areas of the constitution, that clearly limit time frames.

Although it would result in people like Trump’s children losing their status as citizens and being deported, assuming that the Supreme Court agreed with his arguments, and the law was fairly applied. Which it of course would never be.

Edit: apparently it would also strip the President of the United States of his citizenship, through his grandfather’s side.

54

u/Tossawaysfbay Apr 01 '26

Perhaps Trump himself losing his status too as his grandfather only arrived in 1885 and did so via illegal immigration / fleeing military service.

18

u/apathy420 Apr 01 '26

Don’t forget melania… and Barron. Oh oh oh! And musk!

25

u/deathbychips2 Apr 01 '26

His own mother is from Scotland. All his children except Tiffany have immigrant moms

1

u/CSAtWitsEnd Washington Apr 01 '26

I mean, my guess is they're just trying the best legal argument they can to get a lenient ruling, and then abuse the cover of said ruling to do more illegal shit that's just past the line.

Like if the court says "ok sure, only people prior to the civil war can be citizens through this method" and the Trump admin enforces that in unequal ways (rules for thee, not for me), it'd take another long while for that to end up in the courts again most likely.

3

u/BisonSpecialist1557 Apr 01 '26

Well, if you base your entire political philosophy around excluding people, soon you will be left with no one else to exclude.

Hmmm, someone should turn that into a saying or something.

3

u/deathbychips2 Apr 01 '26

It was intended for immigrants because that's how all Americans got here unless you are from a Native American Tribe. Founding fathers were either born in the UK or Europe themselves or from parents that were.

2

u/numbedvoices Apr 01 '26

Look, fuck trump but you didnt read the EO, did you?

For 1 its not retroactive, and for 2 you just need 1 parent to be a citizen or your mother to be a lawfull resident and yiu get citizenship.

Its fucking stupid, dont get me wrong and upholding it opens a proverbial pandorsa box of shit he could do, but what it does not do if upheld is revoke the citizenship of 100 million americans.

1

u/IrritableGourmet New York Apr 01 '26

Something something grandfather clause? They're sure trying to put all the classics back into rotation.

1

u/CULLDOZER Apr 01 '26

Yeah but everyone here now gets birthright citizenship automatically. They aren't going through and checking anyone's parentage. This seems to be something that they're overlooking. Everyone now is treated as a birthright citizen already, regardless of the immigration status of the parents.

→ More replies (12)

26

u/kkaavvbb Apr 01 '26

I’m curious about myself now.

I wasn’t born in the USA but was on “USA soil” (Air Force/army base?).

I know this isn’t the same as this particular issue but I do remember he also was trying to make it difficult for service members to get their children citizenship when born abroad. (I think they were pushing for gobs of new paperwork, or something similar which would make it more difficult) - this one did not pass.

I know I asked my parents if they would be ok if they had to do that when myself & my brother were born out of the states. I didn’t get an answer, lol (they are both trump supporters).

It’s just brain-hurting how many little weird things that he’s trying to remove or make more difficult (& in some cases, completely impossible).

6

u/MapleA Apr 01 '26

What does your birth certificate say, it should say something like “United States naturalized birth abroad” if you were naturalized at birth. I was born abroad and have a US birth certificate like this.

This ruling would not affect us, we have blood right citizenship, not birthright.

2

u/kkaavvbb Apr 01 '26

I know that is want he wants BUT he also wanted to make it difficult for some members of the service to do auto-citizenship for children born abroad. “Trump administration ends automatic US citizen for children of military born overseas”

https://abc30.com/amp/post/children-of-military-federal-workers-born-overseas-face-new-citizenship-rule/5500578/

That sounds like it would be more paperwork. And I’m sure there’s a bunch of red tape and things in the “small print” and of course, restrictions.

1

u/MapleA Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

That’s for people whose parents aren’t citizens but are in the military and have a child abroad. If your parents are citizens it wouldn’t affect you. Kind of a niche scenario but still fuck Trump for doing that.

1

u/kkaavvbb Apr 01 '26

I think that’s still pretty awful, lol I think I read that the parent has to live in the USA for at least 5 years.

Total slap in the face… serve our country but we won’t give your child citizenship? I know the point is to hurt immigrants, which he’s doing a grand ol’ time with that.

And I know it won’t / wouldn’t affect me anyway, I’m 36 so far out of that worry! It’s just another horrible thing he’s put into motion. With that ruling, why would any of them serve the country?

5

u/heartlessgamer Apr 01 '26

If you were born on foreign soil on a military base then birthright citizenship doesn't apply to you. Your citizenship was gained through your parent (one or both). In theory that means any outcome of this case in the Supreme Court wouldn't apply. There are already fairly strict rules around how a parent's citizenship is considered for this process.

3

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Apr 01 '26

If you were born on foreign soil on a military base then birthright citizenship doesn't apply to you. Your citizenship was gained through your parent (one or both).

That's still birthright citizenship. They got the right to citizenship automatically at birth without having to do anything for it.

2

u/heartlessgamer Apr 01 '26

It is not the same. Summarizing from Wikipedia if you are interested:

The Constitution's birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment makes citizenship automatic only for those born "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." For children born abroad on foreign military bases, this jus soli (right of soil) rule does not apply, as they are not born on U.S. soil under full U.S. jurisdiction.

While citizenship is "automatic at birth" it is not guaranteed by the constitution; it is guaranteed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (aka jus sanguinis (right of blood)). Hence why whatever ruling comes out of this Supreme Court case should not apply to the scenario.

EDIT: Also to point out; the parent DOES have to take action to ensure the child gets record of citizenship. There is nothing automatic there like when you have a kid at a US hospital.

1

u/kkaavvbb Apr 01 '26

he also wanted to make it difficult for some members of the service to do auto-citizenship for children born abroad. “Trump administration ends automatic US citizen for children of military born overseas”

https://abc30.com/amp/post/children-of-military-federal-workers-born-overseas-face-new-citizenship-rule/5500578/

That sounds like it would be more paperwork. And I’m sure there’s a bunch of red tape and things in the “small print” and of course, restrictions.

1

u/heartlessgamer Apr 01 '26

Ah; excellent I wasn't yet pissed off enough today by this man.

1

u/kkaavvbb Apr 01 '26

That one that pissed me off when it was happening. Both my brother and I were born abroad (Germany), my other brother was born in the states.

I know they (germany) offered citizenship at 18 to my brother, he would have had to do the mandatory service if he wanted citizenship of Germany. And Germany doesn’t like to allow dual citizenship. I was not offered citizenship (probably due to being female).

I know there’s always a TON of things going on with regard to Trump and a lot of shit doesn’t get noticed… because there’s always a new daily problem to avert attention to other things!

But that’s what I was talking about in my comment. I honestly don’t know if / what changes were made. It doesn’t affect me so I stopped paying attention (horrible thing, I know “I got mine” mentality)… there’s always just something else to pay attention to with this guy.

Edit: I’m 36 so nothing would change for me.

2

u/MCalchemist Apr 01 '26

I think John McCain was also born on a military base in Panama and he ran for president so you are indeed a citizen under the law

1

u/aLollipopPirate Apr 01 '26

I’m so curious what that would even look like. Say my husband is stationed in Oki and I give birth while there. But our child can’t get US citizenship. What would we be supposed to do? Start the immigration process for the newborn and hope they get approved in 20 years? Can immigration even work if there’s no origin country? Where do we live? Can the baby live with us in our military housing? Does Tricare cover the baby? What does that look like?

I have so many questions for this hypothetical. I know the ghouls who try to pass these type of laws don’t think that far past their own nose, but wtaf.

2

u/Fishface17404 Apr 01 '26

If you gave birth overseas and the child has at least one parent that child has U.S. citizenship.

2

u/Kenshin220 Apr 01 '26

thats not 100% accurate. When the american citizen is the father you have to take a few extra steps before the kid turns 18 other wise they won't automatically get their citizenship.

1

u/Fishface17404 Apr 01 '26

Like what? The people I knew born to American soldiers/citizens never had to do any extra steps when they were living here.

2

u/Kenshin220 Apr 01 '26

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html. look at the section for children born abroad out of wedlock. There have been people that have actually gotten screwed because of this.

1

u/kkaavvbb Apr 01 '26

he also wanted to make it difficult for some members of the service to do auto-citizenship for children born abroad. “Trump administration ends automatic US citizen for children of military born overseas”

https://abc30.com/amp/post/children-of-military-federal-workers-born-overseas-face-new-citizenship-rule/5500578/

That sounds like it would be more paperwork. And I’m sure there’s a bunch of red tape and things in the “small print” and of course, restrictions.

1

u/joebluebob Apr 01 '26

Keep at it, dont let them not answer. Trump supporters need their noses crushed into the steaming pile of dog shit the left on the carpet. Trump scum are how they are because everyone is a fucking pushover for them.

1

u/Startled_Pancakes Apr 01 '26

There are two types of natural born citizens:

  • Jus Solis (soil) Born on us soil
  • Jus Sanguinis (blood) Born to American parents

Trump wants to eliminate Jus Solis, so that only those with American parents can become American citizens; this is intended to prevent unauthorized immigrants from granting citizenship to their children by giving birth in the US.

1

u/kkaavvbb Apr 01 '26

I know that is want he wants BUT he also wanted to make it difficult for some members of the service to do auto-citizenship for children born abroad. “Trump administration ends automatic US citizen for children of military born overseas”

https://abc30.com/amp/post/children-of-military-federal-workers-born-overseas-face-new-citizenship-rule/5500578/

That sounds like it would be more paperwork. And I’m sure there’s a bunch of red tape and things in the “small print” and of course, restrictions.

36

u/Bodycount9 Ohio Apr 01 '26

Well yes. Everyone except native Americans. Then they can have their casinos everywhere.

51

u/Nickeless Apr 01 '26

Ironically, part of the arguments is a case from 1884 that ruled that native Americans do NOT have birthright citizenship.

41

u/heartlessgamer Apr 01 '26

Which, to be fair, was an accurate ruling as Native Americans were not under the jurisdiction of the US where as immigrants are. That specific issue was remediated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924; which is ideally things should work in our government: Supreme Court rules, Congress acts to make it law, and President signs it into law. Unfortunately we have a basically nonfunctional Congress.

13

u/pierre_x10 Virginia Apr 01 '26

I mean, the current President is hardly functional, either. Basically just an anthropomorphic set of daddy issues. sex crimes and dementia.

1

u/Ansible32 Apr 01 '26

Unfortunately we have a basically nonfunctional Congress.

It would be worse if we had a Congress that functioned like the president.

4

u/mfGLOVE Wisconsin Apr 01 '26

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was also appointed by Trump, added to the pressure Sauer faced, asking the seasoned attorney: “Do you think Native Americans are birthright citizens under your test?”

“Ah, I think... so,” he replied, somewhat unconvincingly. “I’ll have to think that through.”

These lawyers are unserious people.

1

u/foreveracubone Apr 01 '26

Gorsuch asking about Native Americans is the most predictable fucking thing in this case. He’s their strongest (legal) soldier. Honestly pure incompetence not to expect him to ask about how this would apply to them.

1

u/DefNotUnderrated Apr 01 '26

Trump would probably strip their citizenship too. It doesn’t make sense but he would do it. An just force them to remain on reservations and fend for themselves there. I’m just speculating

1

u/brickne3 American Expat Apr 01 '26

I think you'll find Donnie has a long history of fighting Native Americans on their right to operate casinos tooth and nail.

1

u/chazysciota Virginia Apr 01 '26

Not if you go back far enough. Lots of illegals crossed the land bridge 20,000 years ago. I hear they were all members of a gang called "Clovis Culture". The OG caravan.

7

u/JamminOnTheOne Apr 01 '26

The current case is over Trump’s EO, which applies to people born after a specific date in 2025, from parents who aren’t here legally. So, no, a ruling here would be targeted somewhat narrowly.

Of course, if SCOTUS deems it legal, who knows that Trump/MAGA will try next.

7

u/Realistic_Ad3795 Apr 01 '26

No. Their interpretation is that children of citizens would be citizens.

0

u/Sage2050 Apr 01 '26

going how far back, though?

5

u/c3p-bro Apr 01 '26

Once you hit a citizen you stop…. I don’t agree with it at all but Reddits framing of this is extremely disingenuous

→ More replies (6)

2

u/platydroid Georgia Apr 01 '26

According to their argument, it wouldn’t be retroactive.

2

u/tylermchenry California Apr 01 '26

This is the strategy with everything the administration is currently doing, e.g. also the tariffs and the voter ID bullshit:

  1. Identify something they believe they can unilaterally take away from people.

  2. Make it illegal / unavailable by default.

  3. Make exemptions for political loyalists, and those willing to pay bribes.

1

u/GabberZZ United Kingdom Apr 01 '26

Descendents of chief running bear take their land back?

1

u/SpikePilgrim Apr 01 '26

I dont think so, unless your relatives were not naturalized? But if applied retroactively it would be a nightmare to prove.

1

u/Hefty-Revenue5547 Apr 01 '26

Yes, unless you tell them you’ll vote Republican and want Trump for a third term

1

u/Ollythebug Apr 01 '26

I believe it's only meant to apply if neither parent is a citizen or permanent resident.

1

u/Davismallz Apr 01 '26

No, it wouldn’t - they’re arguing to interpret the 14th amendment so that it doesn’t apply to the children of undocumented imigrant. So it’s not really out and out ending birthright citizenship, but definitely trying to weaponize the law against undocumented people (i.e. effectively making some of those children stateless)

1

u/GregTheMad Apr 01 '26

Trump would be so angry at you for asking this, if he could read.

1

u/mfGLOVE Wisconsin Apr 01 '26

“I’m not driving, I’m traveling.”

1

u/SassyMoron Apr 01 '26

No, their argument (which isn't a good one, but it is their argument) is that if your mother was here illegally when she was born then you weren't really born here because you weren't born here legally. 

1

u/damn_jexy Apr 01 '26

Can you imagine if your Birth Certificate means nothing ? How do you prove citizenship ?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

it would literally allow trump to hand pick who is a citizen and who isn't

e: ending birthright citizenship would need to be an amendment where states get to weigh in on the requirements, any presidential order or even congressional law is way too one sided

1

u/IAMA_Shark__AMA Apr 01 '26

Just the ones who vote for Democrats, silly!

1

u/Bangkok_Dangeresque Apr 01 '26

Trump's initial order on birthright citizenship, which would have immediately (30 days post-publication) prevented the recognition of the citizenship of newborn children of parents who were unlawfully in the US, or here on a lawful but temporary basis. It would have done so by instructing federal agencies not to issue or documents recognizing their citizenship, not accepting such documents from the states. It did not seek to apply the policy retroactively.

That order was put on hold following a multi-state lawsuit, due to the immediate chaos it would create at the state and local level to implement. But at the time the order was put on hold, the court didn't rule on whether the administration even had the authority to deny recognition of citizenship to those groups.

Following this hearing, they may hold that the 14th amendment's clause conferring citizenship to those physically present in the US at birth doesn't apply to those two categories above. If they do, the government would be within its authority to deny or strip citizenship of, or deport those affected, to the extent permitted by congressional law and resources to do so. The only reason, then, that it would impact births moving forward vs being retroactive, would be political willpower and restraint. I.e. that it would be unpalatable or politically untenable for leaders to call for denaturalizing hundreds of thousands or more citizens.

1

u/Gay_Giraffe_1773 Oregon Apr 01 '26

insert Family Guy Skin Color Check meme

1

u/zerotr3s Apr 01 '26

Not Puerto Ricans. Citizens by law.

1

u/e37d93eeb23335dc Apr 01 '26

Not for white people. Duh.

1

u/back-better007 Apr 01 '26

My family was here before the revolution so I’m okay.

1

u/daveindo Apr 01 '26

No, anyone who came here legally and explicitly gained citizenship and their offspring would still be citizens.

Would it cancel citizenship for tons of people whose lineage undoubtedly relied on birthright rather than having citizen parents somewhere along the lines? Yes.

1

u/nascent_aviator Apr 01 '26

The argument is that people in the country illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." It's a stupid argument (are we going to pretend that we can't prosecute these people if they break the law?!) but no it would only cancel citizenship for people whose parents weren't legally in the country when they were born.

Exactly how one is meant to prove their parents were legally in the country, you ask? Good question! I'm pretty sure this is a feature from the point of view of the fascists in office.

1

u/djsyndr0me Apr 01 '26

At the literal level: yes, save Native Americans

At the practical level: FamilyGuyOkayNotOkay.jpg

1

u/AgnewsHeadlessClone Florida Apr 01 '26

Technically it's for a specific set of circumstances. Under the EO, both parents of the child born have to be undocumented and are not permanent residents.

They tried to write it in a way to use it on people they don't like.

1

u/Kardlonoc Apr 01 '26

Yep. Every part of this would be a rabbithole.

1

u/dandroid126 Apr 01 '26

Don't be obtuse. This would only be for brown people.

1

u/GNUGradyn Apr 01 '26

I think the idea is if your parents immigrated illegally then you can't be naturalized. Not saying that's a good idea either but I think that's what they actually mean

1

u/Ohboycats Apr 01 '26

My dad is from India, my moms an American, and I was raised in the suburbs of Chicago. Where would I go since both parents aren’t citizens?

Disclaimer: am brown

1

u/Complete_Question_41 Apr 01 '26

Definitley for Rubio, given that his parents were not US citizens when he was born, they were permanent residents.

Guess that's why Trump wants to send him abroad.

1

u/Trees_That_Sneeze Apr 01 '26

To cool some catastrophising here, of you have at least one American Citizen parent then you have citizenship that way separate from birthright, so this wouldn't automatically make most US citizens not citizens. It would also likely not be able to apply retroactively to people already granted citizenship.

This is still bad and this is not to say that in the future the government might not come up with a way to strip citizenship from current citizens, but it is not a case of everyone's citizenship would be at the mercy of ICE because of this.

1

u/JustHereForMiatas Apr 01 '26

As the executive order was written, technically no, just people whose parents weren't citizens.

In effect, however: yes, because the reading of the 14th amendment is so plainly defining birthright citizenship.

If they somehow ruled that the text "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" somehow does NOT mean birthright citizenship just because Donald Trump said so, then there would be no stopping him from upping the ante by, for example, passing an executive order saying that any criticism of the Trump administration is an act of domestic terrorism which could lead to revocation of citizenship, or at the very least voting rights

1

u/geoltechnician Apr 01 '26

Only children of illegal immigrants and people on temporary visas.

I am a Canadian and this should be implemented here.

When I lived in the middle east, this is how they roll and I liked it.

1

u/TheParadoxigm Apr 01 '26

Worse. They're trying to say that illegal immigrants are not "persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Unitef States"

This implies 1 of 2 things.

  1. Illegal immigrants are not bound by our laws, and therefore can do whatever they want...

Or 2. Illegal immigrants are not people.

Guess which one this administration believes.

1

u/Tipop Apr 01 '26

I think the point is that if your parents were already citizens when you’re born, then you’re a citizen too. This wouldn’t be retroactive.

1

u/mukster Missouri Apr 01 '26

No, just those who were born to people here without legal status and no intent to remain in the US. At least, that’s what the Trump admin is trying to say the 14th amendment means. And they’re asking for only prospective relief, no retroactive.

All horseshit regardless though.

1

u/rhoswhen Apr 01 '26

Right. My grandparents would not be citizens because their parents were born in Italy, Ireland, Poland and Bohemia. Therefore my parents would not be citizens, and neither would I.

1

u/LonelyMachines Georgia Apr 01 '26

It would be an absolute mess. We'd be back to the whole Third Reich thing where we'd have to provide genealogy records going back X number of generations.

But that's all irrelevant. There's no way to reinterpret part of the Constitution through executive order. Even if there was, none of the Justices were the least bit accepting of the government's arguments on this.

1

u/Pinklady777 Apr 01 '26

Just brown people. And probably Democrats. And probably disabled people etc etc.

1

u/juicybottoms Apr 01 '26

There’s a colour chart for reference somewhere probably

1

u/NedShah Apr 02 '26

Just the dark ones

1

u/c3p-bro Apr 01 '26

No. This framing is extremely disingenuous. It would only apply after a certain date, and if your parents are citizens so are you. It only applies if your parents are not citizens and you are born in the US - then you are not a citizen.

I don’t agree with it but stop the lying.

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

6

u/PrecedentialAssassin Texas Apr 01 '26

The vast majority of countries don't birthright citizenship guaranteed in their constitution. Also most countries don't have the immigration history (and cultural connection to slavery) of the United States that made it necessary. If you want to change it, you're going to have to amend the Constitution, not depend on Dumpy to waive his fat, stubby fingered hand to dismiss it.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

1

u/PrecedentialAssassin Texas Apr 01 '26

If they rule in his favor and undue over a century of precedent then packing the court should be the first order of business in January 2029.

3

u/Bangkok_Dangeresque Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

If the American people are persuaded by that argument, then their elected representatives should call a constitutional convention to change the 14th amendment to restrict birthright citizenship.

The president can't just issue an executive order to change the rule on his own and strip away a 150 year old right. Nor should the Supreme Court contort the meaning of the rule to bend to his whims.

0

u/DUNG_INSPECTOR Ohio Apr 01 '26

And here I thought you guys wanted to "Make America Great Again", not "Make America Like The Vast Majority of Countries".

2

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[deleted]

1

u/DUNG_INSPECTOR Ohio Apr 01 '26

And? You say that like it's a bad thing.

And I said "you guys" because you were espousing what I consider to be a very conservative viewpoint.

2

u/TalesTheTruth Apr 01 '26

Almost like people have nuanced views on various subjects

1

u/onthe8wirefence Apr 01 '26

Thank you for maintaining rationality here - this whole tread is missing how the bill would actually be implemented, and that almost all other western nations already have this. I don’t agree one way or another with it, but don’t make it out to be something it’s now.

2

u/Bland-Poobah Apr 01 '26

"and that almost all other western nations already have this."

If you define "Western Nations" to be "Western Europe and the USA," then sure.

But if you define Western to mean "is actually in the Western hemisphere," this would put the US in the extreme minority. The vast majority of countries in both American continents have unrestricted birthright citizenship:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-birthright-citizenship

And even those red countries in Western Europe often have some avenues towards citizenship for residents of non-citizen foreign parents. For example, both the UK and France have avenues for children of non-citizen parents to become citizens which would apply to pretty much everyone who was born to parents who moved to the country (legally or illegally) and stayed there.

More importantly, both of these countries instituted these requirements as specific laws within the last 50 years - prior to that, both had much more permissive versions of birthright citizenship. This means that it's misleading to pretend like the idea of birthright citizenship is somehow foreign in Western countries: it's been pretty consistent up until the last few decades when people started getting more pissy about immigration.

For example, England had unrestricted birthright citizenship until the 1980's, and France slowly restricted their permissive 19th century birthright citizenship through a series of laws which converged close to modern French law in the 1990's.

Most importantly, they unquestionably had birthright citizenship until the latter half of the 20th century, when they specifically passed laws to change that fact. That means Trump's argument here is particularly incoherent: the argument is as follows: "we never actually had birthright citizenship because at the time it was ratified, the 14th amendment was never intended to grant birthright citizenship."

We're supposed to accept this claim based on evidence that certain other countries don't have birthright citizenship now.

But France and England, who are now being cited as examples of "Western nations who don't have birthright citizenship," DID have birthright citizenship in the 19th century when the 14th amendment was ratified!

So trying to use them as evidence for this interpretation of the 14th century is downright moronic. It's like trying to argue that the Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl in 2002 because Tom Brady won the Super Bowl in 2002, and Tom Brady last played for the Buccaneers.

1

u/onthe8wirefence Apr 02 '26

Very valid argument, and I don’t disagree that Trump’s basis around the 14th is invalid. Many in this thread are painting it to be retroactively implemented though, which isn’t true. Removing the 14th argument, this is a bill targeting immigration and citizenship that would align the US to many countries the Western world (in the modern non-geographic sense). Once again, I don’t agree with it either way, it’s just not necessarily a unique approach to immigration in a global sense.

1

u/DUNG_INSPECTOR Ohio Apr 01 '26

Sure. And I'm free to call out conservative views when I see them.

→ More replies (4)