Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(172,351 posts)
Sat Jun 28, 2025, 03:17 PM Jun 2025

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 don’t 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/

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling (Original Post) BumRushDaShow Jun 2025 OP
Well, by the fall when it is beyond obvious that crops aren't Tadpole Raisin Jun 2025 #1
This will hurt every "American". Chaos is NOT good for any economy. nt Exp Jun 2025 #2
It means not so much. Igel Jun 2025 #3
Executive Orders are NOT "laws" BumRushDaShow Jun 2025 #4
The distinction doesn't help much when a bunch of anti-constitutionalists are running congress and SCOTUS mdbl Jun 2025 #6
Exactly. BumRushDaShow Jun 2025 #7
This message was self-deleted by its author in2herbs Jun 2025 #5
Melania Trump was an alien when his son was born, will he be deported now? NotHardly Jun 2025 #8

Tadpole Raisin

(1,977 posts)
1. Well, by the fall when it is beyond obvious that crops aren't
Sat Jun 28, 2025, 03:37 PM
Jun 2025

being picked, grocery stores and hospitals are suffering, laborers aren’t available to do work, houses aren’t 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 aren’t 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.

Igel

(37,614 posts)
3. It means not so much.
Sat Jun 28, 2025, 07:15 PM
Jun 2025

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 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.


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 order’s 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)
4. Executive Orders are NOT "laws"
Sat Jun 28, 2025, 07:35 PM
Jun 2025

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)
6. The distinction doesn't help much when a bunch of anti-constitutionalists are running congress and SCOTUS
Sun Jun 29, 2025, 07:49 AM
Jun 2025

They just allow things to happen anyway.

Response to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

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.

Tell me more...

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Immigrants scramble for c...