I need an explaination about birthright citizenship.

[Figarosmom]

My Dad was the son of two Italian immigrants. So if the Supremes rule that there is no birthright does that mean my Dad would not be a citizen and therefore nor would I?

Wouldn't that be the case for almost everyone in the country since our ancestors immigrated here from somewhere?

How would that work?

[ret5hd]

1. i've posted essentially the same question here before...

i suggested we leave the issue up to the native americans.

[COL Mustard]

2. I'm not a lawyer, but I've read the Amendment

You’ll be fine. Birthright citizenship accrues to anyone who was born here, with some very narrow exceptions like children of foreign diplomats. No matter how the Asshole in charge wants to change that, he can’t. Trying to undo citizenship from people who were born here would be a legal and logistical nightmare.

[Ms. Toad]

5. That's not the reason they will be fine.

The proposed interpretation is for births AFTER February 20. No one alive on the date the executive order was signed has anything to worry about.

But there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will reject Trump's proposed interpretation. The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - the contention is that because the people in question are here without a legal right to be here, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United states. That phrase has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court, so it is still open to interpretation.

I think the suggested interpretation is ludicrous - if they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then the United States, then we can't prosecute them criminally for any offense (that's where your "children of foreign diplomats" comes in).

But even though I am a lawyer and know how these things work, I'm not on the Supreme Court.

[COL Mustard]

15. Thank you, Counselor!

You address nuance that I wasn’t aware of.

[Ms. Toad]

3. Read the executive order.

The executive order announced the intent to change the interpretation of birthright citizenship for certain infants born AFTER February 20, 2025. It has NO retroactive impact.

[Figarosmom]

8. So tbey create two different levels of citizenship

What about those immigrants of South Africa he allowed in or immigrants from European nations? Or is spelled out just black and brown?

[Irish_Dem]

10. You should be fine if you are white, but if you are a white Dem, you are dead meat.

[Ms. Toad]

12. The birthright citizen executive order has nothing to do with immigration.

The South Africans are immigrants under a refugee program. Those are nearly always limited to people for whom living in their own country is either unsafe (e.g. Jews in Nazi Germany) or no longer possible (e.g. the country no longer exists because of war).

Trump made up crap about White South Africans not being safe in South Africa, and created a refugee program for them.

[COL Mustard]

16. Today, I'm afraid, we would

Deport Jews to Nazi Germany.

[DFW]

4. I wonder if they would come after my daughters or my granddaughters.

All four were born in Germany with just one American parent.

I do not trust the “no retroactive” part. If they ignore the citizenship of people they arrest now, they can certainly continue to do so.

[Ms. Toad]

7. That's a different issue.

That falls under the statutory provisions for citizenship, not the constitutional provisions.

[Irish_Dem]

11. Trump and the Supreme Court don't give a damn about the laws, statutes, constitution.

They make it up as they go.

[Ms. Toad]

13. They would have to at least pretend to change the law. n/t

[Irish_Dem]

18. Right, the SC goes back to 17th century law to justify their crimes.

Like overturning Roe vs Wade.

The SC doesn't even bother to pretend anymore.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. One American parent is sufficient under current order

This order is poorly drafted but it is clear that if one parent is a US Citizen, then the child is a US citizen. This is from the poorly drafted executive order. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the 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 at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Under this order, if one parent is a US Citizen, then the child is a US Citizen. When Ted Cruz was born in Canada, only his other was a US Citizen at the time of birth and that was sufficient. Cruz is a US Citizen and is unfortunately also eligible to run for POTUS.

One of the concerns of some of the lawyers/experts in this area is that if this order is allowed to reject established law, then trump may try to expand the scope of this limitation on birthright citizenship.

[Irish_Dem]

6. Doesn't matter. Trump will get rid of anyone for any reason.

[Figarosmom]

9. I think you're right.

[Bread and Circuses]

14. Correct......

And it will impact you, your children and grandchildren IF you are not a Republican turncoat.


I have ordered copies of my US citizenship and have given to my kids should they need to prove that I am a native born citizen. Expect that the end to birthright citizen will be administered unevenly and unfairly.

This is how things work in Russia. Slide an official cash money and suddenly your approved…..until the next shake down.

[thought crime]

17. If the SCOTUS did go ahead and change the Constitution...

A "normal" government would only apply the change going forward. And of course this government is not normal.

[Ms. Toad]

19. First, it is literally their job to interpret the constitution.

They are the branch of government charged with resolving disputes about what the constitution means. No one is changing the constitution; they are interpreting the meaning of the birthright citizenship provision which is already part of the constitution

Second, the executive order is expressly limited to people born after February 20, 2025.

Reality is bad enough. Let's not borrow trouble by making up/repeating fake news.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

20. Maddow Blog-Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship blocked by federal judge

The Supreme Court left open a door to challenging the executive order restricting birthright citizenship. The ACLU walked right through.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/birthright-citizenship-class-action-trump-executive-order-rcna218023

Trump’s order, however, continues to fare poorly in the courts. NBC News reported:

A federal judge in New Hampshire granted class-action status to a lawsuit seeking to protect babies who would be denied birthright citizenship by the Trump administration and granted a temporary block of the order restricting birthright citizenship from going into effect throughout the country. The suit was brought on behalf of a pregnant immigrant, immigrant parents and their infants and had sought class action status for all babies around the country who would be affected by Trump’s executive order and their parents.

NBC News’ report added that the judge in the case “ordered a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking Trump’s order from going into effect, but stayed his order for seven days, allowing the government time to appeal” — which it almost certainly will.

The ruling in the case was issued by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Laplante, who was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush.

While readers might’ve seen headlines about a related Supreme Court ruling last month, as my MSNBC colleague Jordan Rubin explained, the justices’ highly controversial opinion focused largely on the judiciary’s authority, not on the underlying constitutional issue and the legality of Trump’s order itself.

Within hours of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which left open the possibility of using class action lawsuits to challenge the White House’s policy, the ACLU filed just such a case. On Thursday morning, it scored a key victory. Watch this space.