Ending birthright citizenship would make almost EVERY ONE OF US an illegal alien.

[Scrivener7]

I am a 7th generation American. But if there is no birthright, then my 6th great grandparents, born of immigrants were not citizens. Neither were they naturalized. Which means their children, my 5th great grandparents, born of what is now a non-citizen, were not citizens. Which means neither were my 4th, 3rd, 2nd, or my parents citizens.

So, since I have never been naturalized, neither am I. Neither have most other US citizens.

[osteopath6]

1. I believe it applies to those here unlawfully

If they give birth while in the US unlawfully. They can't go too far with this or the courts will definitely enjoin this action.

[Scrivener7]

4. Back in the day, who came over "lawfully."

And what do you say when they tell you they discovered your ancester was not here lawfully?

[NutmegYankee]

15. ex post facto.

Anyone issued a birth certificate until now is a citizen.

[Scrivener7]

17. Who says?

[NutmegYankee]

22. You literally have objective quality evidence if you have a birth certificate

No court can deny that.

[Scrivener7]

44. My point is that settled law means nothing anymore.

The courts ARE denying things we never thought they would. The plight of those first generation citizens is the plight of all of us. If this is ever allowed to happen, the next thing will be even crazier.

We need to go to the wall to defend against this, though I am at a loss about how to do that because it seems the rules no longer apply.

[osteopath6]

48. It seems the rules are "sort of" applying

Just being "clarified" which sadly has a history. The EPA, ATF among others write their own form of administrative law. They interpret the statutes, issue complex and sometimes contradictory findings, and it has been generally backed by the courts.

They justify it on giving the executive leeway in executing the laws passed by congress.

Personally I think if a law is that complicated it should be held until clarificatiom. It would serve as a much stronger check on the unitary executive.

[Scrivener7]

49. The kind of "sort of" that results in women dying and families being tormented and separated.

[osteopath6]

50. I hear you

Congress has passed some terrible laws and it is very unfortunate we haven't elected reps capable of fixing them.

But a main function of the executive branch is executing the laws passed by congress, not making up their own version.

Anything else allows the likes of Trump and whoever else to pick and choose which laws they'll enforce at the end of a gun and which they will not. It really disempowers congress, and taken to an extreme (which, they of course would) is an elimination of the third branch of government and the concentration of power designed to be shared by hundreds into one single pair of overly-oranged hands, or worse.

[osteopath6]

40. I'm not saying they are correct

Just trying to read it for what it is. We are at our best with the most accurate information.

The fact it isn't retroactive removes any of the ancestor worries. As someone else pointed out, US citizenship is a really great defense to such hypothetical proceedings. Courts aren't going to fall in line just because Trump says so.

Although my Grandma was a card carrying communist from CZ 🤷‍♀️😅 She was proud to tell all of us grandkids. My grandfather was a WW2 vet, born in Columbus, great Gf was a WW1 vet and that's about as far as I can trace my roots definitively.

[Ocelot II]

7. Most of our ancestors were here "unlawfully" in the sense

that they didn't have permission to come if they arrived before about 1880. They just showed up without going through any immigration process. My 3x great-grandfather arrived from Norway in 1854 without a passport or a visa and without permission from anybody, and he was eventually able to buy some land and his wife gave birth to a couple of anchor babies. Actually, at this point I would like very much to be deported back to Stavanger.

[LeftInTX]

20. Yeah, mine came 1910-1925

There was also fraud involved! My grandmother's sister said she was my grandfather's sister, and her mother said she was my grandfather's mother. Took me years to figure out these "lost" relatives were people I had known all my life!


My grandmother was married to my grandfather who was a US citizen at the time. That's why they lied about who they were.

My grandfather's "real" relatives were long lost to the ether. I think his mother was already dead at the time.

[Retrograde]

23. I have a photocopy of one

of my g-grandfather's naturalization papers, so that makes me 1/8 legal - do I get to stay in the country for 6.5 weeks every year?

[yardwork]

8. A lot of our ancestors came over "unlawfully."

Some of my ancestors came from Europe before the Revolutionary War. I guess they were British citizens, who lost that status after the war. Does the Constitution specify that everybody in the new U.S. after the war automatically became citizens? No, it does not, because that would have meant that enslaved people and American Indians were citizens, too - and that wasn't allowed.

So at what point in my ancestry did I become "legal?"

And isn't this a stupid, pointless thing to argue about? How does this lower the price of eggs?

Rhetorical question.

[Emile]

37. +1 exactly

[Crunchy Frog]

25. It's also intended to apply to people here lawfully, on temporary visas.

I don't think any of it is Constitutional, but I'm not sure that matters in our country right now.

[LeftInTX]

36. I forgot about them.

I believe a majority of Indians voted for Trump and East Asians were about 50/50.
We also have a significant amount of Arabs here on work Visas.

FAFO

[arthurgoodwin]

33. From the Executive Order in question

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

Sec. 2. Policy. (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

Note that the order excludes everyone except those born 30 days or more after date of order (which was yesterday). Had Trump not phrased it to exclude people before the order it almost certainly would have applied to all 3 of his kids.

The order is very bad, but NOT bad in the way the poster opines.

[Blue Full Moon]

2. They will be able to deport anyone that they don't like.

Problem is most American families have been here long enough that they would not qualify to go to the countries that their families were originally from

[durablend]

3. Then Trump will be like

"Fine. We'll drop you in the ocean then"

[liberalhistorian]

16. For me, that would be

England, Ireland, Scotland, France or Germany. I'll take any one of those right now compared to the fascist authoritarian dystopian shitfest that's here now!

[Srkdqltr]

5. This is ,....................... Well s***** it is not retroactive

[Scrivener7]

6. If they're going after people currently in the country, it is.

[AZJonnie]

9. Not that his idea isn't horrible and unconstitutional, it most assuredly is

But, at least at this point, my understanding of what the Orange Shitgibbon is trying to do is to end it for future births. That's not to say that, if he is successful, he might not try to push the idea even further and into the realm of what you're suggesting. But for right now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no retroactive implication to His Royal Highnesses proclamation.

[gab13by13]

11. How can Trump end something that is in the Constitution?

The only way is if you recognize him as the Dictator of America.

[AZJonnie]

26. See my post #24 below where I explain what I think he's actually up to

I don't think he can 'end it' but the point is it'll now be in some form of 'legal limbo' for a period of time here, and ICE will use the threat of it ending to scare the citizen kids into willingly leaving with their undocumented parents.

[Mariana]

42. He can if the Supreme Court rubber stamps it.

[qazplm135]

13. I'm pretty sure

He wants to deport families even if the kid is legally here because of birthright citizenship

[AZJonnie]

24. AFAIK, the rest of the family, sans the child, could always have been deported

There's no special dispensation I'm aware of for the parents of such kids, where they've been formally legally protected from deportation just because their child(ren) exist and are birthright citizens. The fact that they often are not in such cases has been based on non-enforcement and basic human decency. Which, obviously, is over with in this country as of yesterday.

This is not to say that Trump's intent is not to make it more politically palatable when he starts doing the very thing you mention. This way ICE will tell the kids 'you better leave with your parents because you might not be a citizen anymore' and Trump tells the world "Well, as everyone knows, because of 'Politics' and 'Evil Democrats' My Royal Proclamation is tied up in the courts, so it's currently a grey area". And the M$M stenographers will dutifully sane-wash his blatant and irrefutable violation of the Constitution for all of us. In the end, when/if he loses this gambit, they'll be out of the country, and in the meanwhile his GOP minions will likely pass laws to make it more difficult for them to come back here and claim their citizenship.

Again, IMHO, a formal law declaring birthright citizenship *retroactively* invalid isn't going to fly, even with the Dirty 6, and Trump knows this. But he doesn't care, he just wants some political cover and plausible deniability for his crimes.

[qazplm135]

32. I think he wants the kids gone

Now whether he gets what he wants is a different thing

[AZJonnie]

41. I'm not sure you're following what I'm trying to say, sorry if I'm being unclear.

Yes, he wants the BR citizen kids gone. By this EO he created a situation where, until it is struck down by the courts, his ICE thugs can use it scare kids into leaving with their undocumented parents by saying 'you may not even be a citizen anymore because Trump said you're not, so you better just leave with your folks, who we are deporting'. They couldn't be MADE to leave if their parents were shipped out, they could opt to live with other relatives or get put in foster care. This EO is a way to get them to leave willingly by scaring them into thinking they're no longer citizens.

[qazplm135]

43. He wants the kids to be made to leave

You say he can't make them.

I say that may or may not end up being true depending on the courts, but he absolutely wants them gone.

You're giving him more cleverness than deserved. He wants this to happen and he thinks his courts will give it to him.

[AZJonnie]

47. It really doesn't take much cleverness to reckon that the courts may not decide the matter instantly

in either direction, and that their well may some kind of 'stay' on the order (i.e. it's not to be enforced) during this time, but that during this time ICE agents can use it's existence to threaten the kids into leaving on their own accord when their parents are shipped out. Even if Trump himself wouldn't think of this, I promise you Stephen Miller would.

[Historic NY]

10. The US Census from 1850 - 1950

lists where the individuals were born and later naturalized or alien. The Staza can get all they need from them. The mandatory filing of A2's in the 40s was the mandatory registering of aliens and undocumented persons.

[J_William_Ryan]

12. More fascist political theater.

Trump panders to his racist, bigoted base while attempting to deflect from the fact that President Biden left Trump with a strong economy and a nation at peace.

[questionseverything]

31. Not really at peace, we have been bombing places in the Middle East for Israel

For a few months

[sanduca]

14. The felon should start with Melania and Elon

Melania overstayed her visa which at that point she became an illegal alien. Her son should be deported with her.
Elon worked with a student visa which makes you ineligible for citizenship since he broke that immigration law. Him and all his kids should be deported.
Start there, felon!

[LeftInTX]

18. It doesn't apply to people who were born before the EO took place.

[Scrivener7]

19. Who says it won't next week.

[LeftInTX]

21. It will likely apply to people born next week and people born today. I have to read the order again.

Some orders have effective dates, some orders are immediate.

[LeftInTX]

28. It applies only to people born 30 days after the order was signed.

(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order.

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

[Scrivener7]

34. And who says that won't change next week?

[LeftInTX]

35. He would need to write another EO for it to change to another date. That is the specific wording from the order.

[Scrivener7]

38. Right. So....

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. Okay but that's not the outcome they're working for, nor the one they will effect

[Scrivener7]

46. I suspect your comment reflects a belief I am attempting to co-opt the disaster that's about to befall

others. I'm not. I am saying that the plight of those first generation US citizens is the result of a bullshit move that could be used against anyone for any reason. Their problem is all our problem. If we show any complacency about this, we are lost.

We need to go to the wall to defend against this, though I am at a loss about how to do that because it seems the rules no longer apply.

[Conjuay]

29. Don't worry, dRUMP.

Some of us are already working on an exit strategy.
It's really sad to see what a lie this country is.
Millions came here just to escape what this country has now become.

[Irish_Dem]

30. We are people without a country now.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

39. I wouldn't mind getting deported to the Netherlands.

Allthough I think my relatives came through Ellis Island.

[mucholderthandirt]

45. I don't believe so. Such a thing did not exist before the Revolution, and it wasn't a thing until it suited the FF.

My ancestors on both sides have been here since about 1600, thus not held to account to such a notion. A goodly portion of my ancestors were here long before that, about 15,000 years ago, and definitely not applicable under birthright citizenship.

All that did was basically make those trying to run the new country eligible to run for those fancy new jobs they wanted, like president. The folks who started all that didn't want people coming in and taking the jobs, like from Canada or the UK. That wouldn't do at all.

And besides, that would make Trump an illegal, and subject to be deported back to Germany, where his grandfather came from.

[proud patriot]

51. I've been saying this for some time

first they came for immigrants American Children

and I am speaking out now

[RainCaster]

52. My ancestors are in a 1650 census...

...taken in the New Sweden colony. Since that's before the US was formed, does that count?

[dweller]

53. cough

✌🏻

[DBoon]

54. Trump has already (in his first term) stripped some Texas Latinos of their passports

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/17800410/trump-passport-birth-certificate-hispanic-denial-citizens

...
Even after the settlement, rejections of midwife-issued birth certificates continued. In 2012, CNN wrote an article about the phenomenon; in 2014, NPR program Morning Edition ran a segment. Both articles quote Jaime Diez, a lawyer also quoted heavily in the Washington Post piece. They also include accounts of people having their passports taken from them as they tried to enter the US, being harassed by Border Patrol agents, and being forced to agree to their own deportation.

What’s changed under Trump appears to be mostly the scope of the denials: according to the attorneys the Post spoke to, at least, there’s been a “surge” in new denials, as well as of people being actually put into deportation proceedings (something that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials can choose to do when a passport is denied for absence of evidence of US birth, but don’t have to do).

Additionally, the government appears to have expanded its “suspicions” not just to birth certificates signed by midwives, but those signed by longtime South Texas obstetrician Jorge Treviño — who delivered thousands of babies, often in home births, before his death in 2015. (One lawyer told the Post that the government has an affidavit from an anonymous Mexican doctor alleging that Treviño falsified a birth certificate; Treviño, being dead, can’t answer the allegations.)

But perhaps most importantly, this is happening under President Donald Trump, who hasn’t exactly built up a record of goodwill among immigrants, US-born Latinos, or white liberals. And so the report has raised concerns not only about the harassment facing the particular passport applicants in South Texas, but about how broadly the Trump administration could challenge the citizenship — and voting rights — of other groups as well.

My bolding.

Maybe revoking passports isn't exactly the same as revoking citizenship, but being denied the right to travel internationally makes people's lives difficult, especially when they have no recourse.

[onenote]

55. The OP's flawed reasoning

The OP assumes that if the courts find that birthright citizenship doesn't apply in all cases, that means it will have the backward looking result the OP hypothesizes.

But that assumes that a court finding an exception to birthright citizenship wouldn't craft that exception not to have the result the OP hypothesizes.

It's not an all or nothing proposition -- nothing stop the court from defining the exception not to look backwards.
Put another way -- does anyone actually believe the court would issue a decision that meant they weren't citizens? And does anyone think the court wouldn't find a way to limit its decision?