The Reign of Trump

[Solauren]

I have actually heard a valid argument for ending it.

When the parents didn't mean to have the kid in the States, but have to, the kid automatically gets citizenship (regardless of the parents wishes).
The kid then has the IRS hounding them when they are adults.

At the very least, there needs to be adjustments on it, so that parents can 'op-out' on behalf of their kid.

And our right reversal, however? Probably not.

It seems like a better idea to let the kid decide if they opt out when they are an adult. So make that easy.

But only they get to make that decision for themselves.

That's probably the best way to do it.

[Ralin]

It would have to be set up only for those children born in the US to non-Us Citizens, or that had not been granted refugee status.

The child of a US citizen would still automatically get citizenship if born within US jurisdiction.

And the children of non-US citizens with malicious or ignorant parents can potentially get fucked? That's a terrible idea and goes directly against the whole point of making citizenship automatic.

Also, isn't that the case of children born to US Citizens anywhere on Earth?

Weird non-sequitor.

[Luke Starkiller]

I have actually heard a valid argument for ending it.

When the parents didn't mean to have the kid in the States, but have to, the kid automatically gets citizenship (regardless of the parents wishes).
The kid then has the IRS hounding them when they are adults.

At the very least, there needs to be adjustments on it, so that parents can 'op-out' on behalf of their kid.

And our right reversal, however? Probably not.

It seems like a better idea to let the kid decide if they opt out when they are an adult. So make that easy.

But only they get to make that decision for themselves.

That's already a thing; it's called Renunciation and, of course, it is expensive and a giant pain in the ass.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... broad.html

[Ralin]

I have actually heard a valid argument for ending it.

When the parents didn't mean to have the kid in the States, but have to, the kid automatically gets citizenship (regardless of the parents wishes).
The kid then has the IRS hounding them when they are adults.

At the very least, there needs to be adjustments on it, so that parents can 'op-out' on behalf of their kid.

And our right reversal, however? Probably not.

It seems like a better idea to let the kid decide if they opt out when they are an adult. So make that easy.

But only they get to make that decision for themselves.

That's already a thing; it's called Renunciation and, of course, it is expensive and a giant pain in the ass.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel ... broad.html

Yes the implication is that there should be an alternative way for people who've never lived in the US or something.

[LadyTevar]

God can you imagine putting the power to opt their kid out of birthright citizenship in the hands of religious nut parents, anti government militia types, straight up abusive sadists looking for a means of control, etc?

It would have to be set up only for those children born in the US to non-Us Citizens, or that had not been granted refugee status.

The child of a US citizen would still automatically get citizenship if born within US jurisdiction.

Also, isn't that the case of children born to US Citizens anywhere on Earth?

It's not only US Citizens that have Birthright. Most European Countries guarantee Birthright, and offer it to children born of Citizens living overseas. So this is not a purely US thing.

Taking it away might be first aimed at Immigrants (legal or not), but it's a damned slippery slope that can lead to a two-tier system of Citizens/Non-Citizens, and this is why the Amendment is part of the Constitution in the first place!

[LadyTevar]

Update:
Supreme Court Hears Arguments, Divided over Judges' Powers

This isn't just about Birthright Citizenship, it seems. It's also about Lower Court's Ability to tell Trump Admin "NO!"

US President Donald Trump took his bid to end birthright citizenship to the US Supreme Court on Thursday, in a case that could help further his agenda on immigration and other issues.

The case asks whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders for the entire country - as they have done in this case. The justices did not appear to reach a consensus as they considered both sides.

The US solicitor general argued that lower courts overstepped their authority, saying this power should be curtailed.

Meanwhile, the New Jersey solicitor general - arguing on behalf of a group of states - said siding with Trump would create a patchwork system of citizenship.

This case just got a helluva lot more complex.

[Ralin]

God can you imagine putting the power to opt their kid out of birthright citizenship in the hands of religious nut parents, anti government militia types, straight up abusive sadists looking for a means of control, etc?

It would have to be set up only for those children born in the US to non-Us Citizens, or that had not been granted refugee status.

The child of a US citizen would still automatically get citizenship if born within US jurisdiction.

Also, isn't that the case of children born to US Citizens anywhere on Earth?

It's not only US Citizens that have Birthright. Most European Countries guarantee Birthright, and offer it to children born of Citizens living overseas. So this is not a purely US thing.

Taking it away might be first aimed at Immigrants (legal or not), but it's a damned slippery slope that can lead to a two-tier system of Citizens/Non-Citizens, and this is why the Amendment is part of the Constitution in the first place!

1) We're talking about automatically granting citizenship to anyone born in the US, not children of US citizens born abroad and 2) Aren't there prominent examples of European countries like France that do not give automatic citizenship to everyone born there and as a result have multi-generational minority communities of people who have lived there their entire lives and aren't considered citizens?

[Solauren]

This case just got a helluva lot more complex.

Donald Trump is using this to challenge the entire US legal system at once.

If lower courts are told that only the US Supreme Court can stop the POTUS, and the Supreme Court already said that Trump can't be held for any official actions as president....


Guess Musk giving the Nazi salute looks prophetic now?

[LadyTevar]

This case just got a helluva lot more complex.

Donald Trump is using this to challenge the entire US legal system at once.

If lower courts are told that only the US Supreme Court can stop the POTUS, and the Supreme Court already said that Trump can't be held for any official actions as president....


Guess Musk giving the Nazi salute looks prophetic now?

And right now, there is nothing we can do about it.
AFTER they make a decision, and if it's against the Lower Courts, we can attempt to appeal, but that's gonna be a long fight.

[Solauren]

That's assuming that IF the Supreme Court rules in Trumps favor, Trump doesn't pass and executive order after banning lower courts from challenging him, based on that decision.

[Rogue 9]

That's assuming that IF the Supreme Court rules in Trumps favor, Trump doesn't pass and executive order after banning lower courts from challenging him, based on that decision.

The courts would laugh at it. An executive order is merely the President telling the executive departments he oversees to do something. He does not oversee Article III courts.