Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
Source: Reuters
June 28, 2025 12:17 PM EDT Updated 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications.
The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status.
Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried.
"There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I dont know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality."
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/immigrants-scramble-clarity-after-supreme-court-birthright-ruling-2025-06-28/
Tadpole Raisin
(1,977 posts)being picked, grocery stores and hospitals are suffering, laborers arent available to do work, houses arent being built, bought or sold, and the angry young man (sorry Billy Joel) has not taken back these jobs stolen by immigrants or I guess even citizens born in this country or on military bases overseas and disappeared
- there arent enough funds you could add to the Bloated Billionaire Baby bill to stave off (read: hide) all the damage and SCOTUS just gave him the green light to keep going no matter what they say from atop the castle.
Exp
(1,027 posts)Igel
(37,614 posts)Read the text:
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 persons mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the persons father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said persons birth, or (2) when that persons mothers presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the persons father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said persons birth.
It says nothing about local jurisdictions. What would this cover? Soc. Sec. cards. Passports. Military ID, I guess. That sort of federal document. Don't know how they check citizenship when you apply for them if the birth certificate doesn't state.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain documentation of their United States citizenship.
Worth pointing out.
Sec. 3. Enforcement. (a) The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Commissioner of Social Security shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations and policies of their respective departments and agencies are consistent with this order, and that no officers, employees, or agents of their respective departments and agencies act, or forbear from acting, in any manner inconsistent with this order.
(b) The heads of all executive departments and agencies shall issue public guidance within 30 days of the date of this order regarding this orders implementation with respect to their operations and activities.
Again, it applies to federal agencies and such. Not your local county or city or state registrar.
And the "public guidance" doesn't say that "their" is local or state government. Don't know if the guidance has been issued or not, you'd think that would be reported but it would be immensely boring and of little interest, when it obviously applies mostly to various agencies. The one exception would be Social Security, and that was a big deal months ago when the EO took affect. Medicaid's state run, not federal, don't know how that would be handled, what the state-federal interface for that program is.
BumRushDaShow
(172,351 posts)They are merely directives to federal agencies on how to enforce "existing laws".
The problem has been 45 thinking that they are "laws" that he is issuing.
mdbl
(8,761 posts)They just allow things to happen anyway.
BumRushDaShow
(172,351 posts)Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)
in2herbs This message was self-deleted by its author.
NotHardly
(2,705 posts)
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.