Trump tries to end birthright citizenship with an executive order (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

I think this deserves its own thread. Perhaps we can try to migrate discussion from the other thread to this one.

Here is the Executive Order:

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.

www.whitehouse.gov

The order presents itself on existing good-ground to exclude children of unlawful immigrants, but that's false - the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not have an ambiguous history.

Twenty-two states and others filed immediate lawsuits to suspend and ultimately rescind the order.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuits-challenge-trumps-birthright-citizenship-other-orders-2025-01-21/

 

[MT15]

States are free to grant cities and counties the power if they choose. Many states, even red, codified abortion rights after Roe’s reversal. I was able to vote for such protections in my state.

So this materially misrepresents the norm. Far more red states voted to ban abortions than the other way around and the few red states that codified that right are facing challenges from their legislative bodies. It was done over the objections of the GOP in their states.

Also - why stop at counties? Or neighborhoods? Why not just let every person have autonomy over their own body and be done with it? The state shouldn’t be regulating any non-viable pregnancies. They should have never reversed Roe - it was a good working compromise which recognized that a viable fetus has some rights but a non-viable fetus is subject to the host.

Now that the extremists are emboldened they are gunning for eliminating certain drugs and certain forms of birth control. They are trying to declare a non-viable embryo as a full person with rights that supercede the woman’s rights. They want to imprison doctors and women for medical procedures.

This SCOTUS made a hugely partisan decision that wiped out 50 years of precedent and invited the state to insert itself into women’s lives, medical decisions and bodies. Literally. It was and is a disaster.

 

[MT15]

The are a number of cases in the pipeline. It’ll be settled before the end of the next Supreme Court term.

And birthright citizenship will stand.

I would support an amendment to end it though.

Kavanaugh wrote that he expects this ruling to stand for several years, didn’t he? Why would he say that if this will be settled by next year?

 

[MT15]

“Historically, desegregation cases in the United States, such as the landmark
Brown v. Board of Education case, were typically brought as class actions rather than utilizing universal or nationwide injunctions in the way they are being used more recently.
Class Action vs. Universal Injunctions:

• Class Actions: These lawsuits are brought on behalf of a group of people who share the same legal issue. The court's ruling applies to all members of the class.
• Universal Injunctions: These injunctions block government policies from being enforced against everyone, regardless of whether they were parties to the specific lawsuit.

In the context of desegregation:

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This crucial case declared state-sponsored segregation in public schools unconstitutional. While it was a class action that benefited a group of affected individuals, the court did not issue a nationwide injunction in the modern sense. The ruling established a precedent that undermined the legal basis of segregation and provided a framework for future desegregation efforts across the country.
• Later desegregation cases: Following Brown, subsequent cases like Green v. County School Board and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg saw the Supreme Court issue mandates and outline specific factors to ensure the dismantling of segregation. However, these efforts generally focused on achieving desegregation within individual school districts rather than using a broad nationwide injunction.

Evolution of Universal Injunctions:

• Universal injunctions, also referred to as nationwide injunctions, are a relatively recent developmentand have seen a significant increase in use in recent years, particularly in the last decade.
• While there is debate among scholars regarding the historical roots of universal injunctions, some argue that they have been used in various forms over time, although perhaps less frequently than they are today.
• Their use has become a subject of scrutiny, with some Supreme Court justices raising concerns about their legality and scope. According to NPR, Justice Clarence Thomas has referred to them as "legally and historically dubious".
• The Supreme Court has recently limited the ability of federal courts to issue universal injunctions, stating that they likely exceed the equitable authority granted by Congress. This means federal judges will generally be limited to blocking policies only for the specific plaintiffs in a lawsuit.

In summary, while desegregation cases like Brown v. Board of Education led to significant legal changes regarding segregation, they did so through class actions and subsequent legal challenges, rather than through the use of broad universal or nationwide injunctions in the way that this judicial tool is being used and debated today. “

You do realize that all AI does is try to figure out what result you want and then give it to you, right? I mean you know that don’t you? It will argue both sides if you want it to.

 

[MT15]

This SCOTUS seems fine with allowing one state to protect women and another state to intrude on them. It also seems to not care if some states decide to do away with birthright citizenship while other states protect it.

Nobody should be wondering how this SCOTUS would have viewed the various compromises that addressed slavery in the newer states in the American West.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You do realize that all AI does is try to figure out what result you want and then give it to you, right? I mean you know that don’t you? It will argue both sides if you want it to.

Exactly. How do you think I got the result I wanted? lol

 

[SamAndreas]

In fairness, the movement is to end birthright citizenship for illegals that give birth. I think they clearly are citizens based in the constitution, but I think there is a fair argument that they shouldn’t get automatic citizenship if both parents are illegals and that the constitution should be changed. I think many people game the current constitution to get citizenship for their kids, and that is wrong. The sticky issue is that the kids must have citizenship somewhere, and it should only apply as long as the kids still have citizenship in their parents’ countries. For countries that don’t grant them citizenship, I would prioritize capturing and removing their illegals.

"In fairness"???

What would be fairness would be to allow all the folks on the world the freedom to move about. It would be beneficial to mix the human gene pool. It's good for people to blend the races. Racial characteristics appear when one part of the human race lives in isolation for thousands of years from the others of our species.

Especially fair it would be to allow all of the peoples of the Americas that essential freedom.

They are our native Americans after all. Our native Americans have been resident to this land for thousands of years.

To drive home that point of "in fairness" I will add that context of "the Americas" above is all of North, South, and central Americas combined as one.

And the context of "our" in the native Americans statement above is inclusive, I am both of native American and of European descent. The European part of my family have been largely here since before the revolution when we boffed the English King.

Those Kings of Europe had no right, it was an unfairness. I don't like so called Kings.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

“Historically, desegregation cases in the United States, such as the landmark
Brown v. Board of Education case, were typically brought as class actions rather than utilizing universal or nationwide injunctions in the way they are being used more recently.
Class Action vs. Universal Injunctions:

• Class Actions: These lawsuits are brought on behalf of a group of people who share the same legal issue. The court's ruling applies to all members of the class.
• Universal Injunctions: These injunctions block government policies from being enforced against everyone, regardless of whether they were parties to the specific lawsuit.

In the context of desegregation:

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): This crucial case declared state-sponsored segregation in public schools unconstitutional. While it was a class action that benefited a group of affected individuals, the court did not issue a nationwide injunction in the modern sense. The ruling established a precedent that undermined the legal basis of segregation and provided a framework for future desegregation efforts across the country.
• Later desegregation cases: Following Brown, subsequent cases like Green v. County School Board and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg saw the Supreme Court issue mandates and outline specific factors to ensure the dismantling of segregation. However, these efforts generally focused on achieving desegregation within individual school districts rather than using a broad nationwide injunction.

Evolution of Universal Injunctions:

• Universal injunctions, also referred to as nationwide injunctions, are a relatively recent developmentand have seen a significant increase in use in recent years, particularly in the last decade.
• While there is debate among scholars regarding the historical roots of universal injunctions, some argue that they have been used in various forms over time, although perhaps less frequently than they are today.
• Their use has become a subject of scrutiny, with some Supreme Court justices raising concerns about their legality and scope. According to NPR, Justice Clarence Thomas has referred to them as "legally and historically dubious".
• The Supreme Court has recently limited the ability of federal courts to issue universal injunctions, stating that they likely exceed the equitable authority granted by Congress. This means federal judges will generally be limited to blocking policies only for the specific plaintiffs in a lawsuit.

In summary, while desegregation cases like Brown v. Board of Education led to significant legal changes regarding segregation, they did so through class actions and subsequent legal challenges, rather than through the use of broad universal or nationwide injunctions in the way that this judicial tool is being used and debated today. “

The point went so far over your head, I don't think you even saw it. Let me illustrate:

 

[SamAndreas]

The are a number of cases in the pipeline. It’ll be settled before the end of the next Supreme Court term.

And birthright citizenship will stand.

I would support an amendment to end it though.

I would support your deportation.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

It’s only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court agrees.

Nothing but false and deceiving drive by posts from you.

We do not assume that the Supreme Court is infallible and any actual American citizen would know this. We know the Supreme Court makes mistakes, that's why the Supreme Court has over turned itself several times through history. There will come a day in the future when most of the badly flawed decisions from the 6 anti-democracy driven justices will be overturned, because they are blatantly defying the constitution.

 

[SFIDC3]

This SCOTUS seems fine with allowing one state to protect women and another state to intrude on them. It also seems to not care if some states decide to do away with birthright citizenship while other states protect it.

Nobody should be wondering how this SCOTUS would have viewed the various compromises that addressed slavery in the newer states in the American West.

Amy Coney Barrett makes me sick to my stomach, because I believe she's intelligent and knows better, she knows she signed a death sentence for lots of poor women with the Dobbs decision and she did it anyway.....pure evil.....

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I don’t recall supporting that.

I find it odd that you can't recall if you support it or not. I've spoken in support of covering all expenses for combat veterans for life. I can't remember every time I've spoken in support of that, but if someone says "didn't you support that," then I know that I supported it even if I don't recall exactly what I said and when I said it.

So that's why I don't believe you for a second when you say "I don't recall supporting that." You would have to lack all sincerity about the things you say and just be here to harass people with drive by comments for me to believe you "don't recall supporting that."

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

There was no Supreme Court precedent on nationwide rulings, until today.

Contradicting yourself again. First you say there was over 200 years of precedent against nationwide injunctions and now here you are saying there was no precedent. You are a propaganda troll and it's obvious at this point.

You're factually wrong again. Nationwide injunction by lower courts have been challenged in the past, yet another thing that you yourself pointed out that contradicts what you are saying now. Nationwide injunctions were challenged in the courts before this ruling and were allowed to continue by the Supreme Court until today. That is a precedent by the Supreme Court of letting nationwide injunctions occur.

 

[SamAndreas]

You do realize that all AI does is try to figure out what result you want and then give it to you, right? I mean you know that don’t you? It will argue both sides if you want it to.

I haven't yet "met" an AI which argues "sides" at all.

I think of the ones I've "met" as being research assistants, they are not beings, nor are the intelligent, they are very polished software running on a fairly standard computer.

BTW Grok is not the same Grok everywhere you might access it from. On the top right corner of tweets there is a small link to an earlier version of Grok.

However if one uses the big Grok link from the index links along the left side of the page one will chat with the latest version 3.0.

Grok explained it to me, it was very open about it's creation. It was also open about it's own learning factors, it needs me and others to chat with it to expand it's learning functions. it needs people to help it do that.

When the later version of Grok explained that it invited me to chat with it often. At first there was a three question a day limit set, now I have unlimited access to Grok version 3 at it's request.

It also explained to me that it's human humor functions were taken from the book Hitchhiker's guide to the Universe. I asked if it was also acquainted with Terry Pratchett's form of humor, it has been shown all of Pratchett's books.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

“Historically,..."

It appears you are using an AI app to now write longer answers to avoid being moderated for drive by posts. Please cite the AI app you are using and quote the prompts that you gave the AI to get the answer that you got.

Also, using quotation marks gives the false impression that you are quoting a credible article. AI responses are highly inaccurate, full of false information and create content solely based on the prompts that a user gives them.

 

[SamAndreas]

Nothing but false and deceiving drive by posts from you.

We do not assume that the Supreme Court is infallible and any actual American citizen would know this. We know the Supreme Court makes mistakes, that's why the Supreme Court has over turned itself several times through history. There will come a day in the future when most of the badly flawed decisions from the 6 anti-democracy driven justices will be overturned, because they are blatantly defying the constitution.

Yes, the political pendulum swings back and forth.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

In fairness, the movement is to end birthright citizenship for illegals that give birth. I think they clearly are citizens based in the constitution, but I think there is a fair argument that they shouldn’t get automatic citizenship if both parents are illegals and that the constitution should be changed.

Then none of us have birthright citizenship, because none of our ancestors were here "legally" which means we are all illegals. That's the rabbit hole you're digging with your suggestion.

I think many people game the current constitution to get citizenship for their kids, and that is wrong.

It was fine for your ancestors, so why not for people today?

The sticky issue is that the kids must have citizenship somewhere, and it should only apply as long as the kids still have citizenship in their parents’ countries. For countries that don’t grant them citizenship, I would prioritize capturing and removing their illegals.

I am sincerely shocked to hear you say something so callous. You are not how I thought you were as a person.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I was able to vote for such protections in my state.

What state is that?

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

I would support an amendment to end it though.

Appreciate your honesty in this post. It explains why you keep defending the intentionally bad decision the 6 agenda driven justices on the Supreme Court just made. It also explains why you keep contradicting yourself to try to trick people into thinking they made the right decision and that they didn't make the decision they actually did.