Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I don't get how you square those two together.
Probably with “The founders only wanted what I think they wanted, despite their explicit instructions”
Interpreting old texts to match their own personal beliefs is what Christo fascists are best at.
You just lie about the second part and have a government full of sycophants and a corrupt Supreme Court that declares that everything you do is by definition legal.
Look no further than the dissent to United States v. Wong Kim Ark (when the Supreme Court ruled that the passage you cited grants citizenship by birthright), written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, the mastermind behind such legal opinions as:
Anyway, he wrote:
the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute
and
[Birthright citizenship means] the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
So in other words, he was willing to rule that the constitution is optional as long as you are using it against undesirable races in order to get his way.
unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute
It absolutely does! That's the point!
You can be born abroad to US citizens and still be a citizen.
You and I know this because we paid attention in high school. The Chief Justice does not.
argues against the 14th Amendment
critics calling it unconstitutional
Uuuuh yeaaah, no shit...
I don't even understand what this will mean. Why does the donvict care so much about this?
Would this mean that while Elon was here illegally and if he had kids with someone with the same status, his kids would not be citizens?
Hurt brown ppl. Member when they ended public pool segregation? Instead of letting their kids swim with black kids the white ppl closed the pools instead.
states should arrest border patrol agents attempting this.
Democrats should threaten to charge anyone attempting this of human trafficking.
Would you like to know more?
You jest but serving in the US military is a legit way to gain citizenship.
It's not a guarantee, though, but it should be. If you serve for, say, 5 years and have not been dishonorably discharged, you should be automatically eligible for citizenship.
As of now, serving only exempts you from the continuous residence and physical presence requirements. You still need to be a permanent resident, know English, understand the US government and history, and demonstrate "good moral character" for at least a year out of the military.
Permanent residency shouldn't be mandated for soldiers. They're choosing to serve for the US - isn't that enough? The English and US government/history requirement should be waived under the assumption that they understand all of those well enough after training and serving in the military. Good moral character really is just that you haven't committed any serious crime which is fine.
My dad was in the air force for years, was incredibly sympathetic to immigrants and openly called for more immigration. But was hesitant to say service should guarantee citizenship.
Notably he was also very critical of Heinlein. Though he did like the bits that weren't heavy handed political philosophy.
He thought that a direct route from service to citizenship would create a militia class of immigrants. It would be very attractive to a certain group of people who's interests may not align with those of the US.
It was a security threat, he thought. And it seems like this attitude is shared by the DoD.
For an illustration of how this could wrong, we just need to look at the French Foreign Legion and how they attempted to assassinate De Gaule over Indochina.
That's currently true, but I was also referring to the universe of Starship Troopers (the movie, vs the Heinlein novel), where it appears that birthright citizenship is no more, and military service (to the crypto-fascist government) is the only realistic path to citizenship for most US residents in that universe.
The heritage foundation has an argument prepared for the inevitable supreme court case. I think it's shit, even for them, but SCOTUS seems like they'll go along with anything.
Their argument hinges on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction there of" claiming that this somehow excludes non-citizens. Accepting this argument would have the weird implication of saying that non-citizens in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So... how do other laws apply to them? How could they be charged with working or entering the US illegally?
That clause was targeted at, and is still targeted at, foreign diplomats who have diplomatic immunity. If you can't be compelled to to pay your parking tickets because you put the little flag on your car, then your babies also don't get to be Americans. Easy.
If your typical non-little-flag-on-car undocumented immigrants are really "not subject to the jurisdiction," then how can you arrest them for all of the horrible crimes they are allegedly committing?
The answer there is easy and horrifying. Since they're "not subject to" the law of the US, you can basically declare them outlaws. The od-school use of the term, basically meaning "this person exists outside of legal sight, so anything that happens to them is entirely legal because they don't exist as a legal entity in our sight."
The end game is open season on anyone who "looks illegal".
I suspect that was probably not as much on their mind as the prospect of a US territory temporarily occupied by a foreign military. I fully anticipated that they would attempt this comparison (despite clearly subjecting illegal immigrants to the jurisdiction). Even if it is incorrect, I could at least see them making that attempt.
I'm surprised that they are trying to extend this to include people legally in the US, with every legal basis to be here and no whiff of any vaguely dubious relationship with jurisdiction..
Even then, they'll likely rig the 2026 elections, to get a supermajority, so they can just replace the constitution with one that is 100% compatible with christofascism.