6 ms·

Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship

30 points by laristine 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago
Isn't this something Congress would have to pass a law on? EO's can be overturned by the next President.
- verdverm 2y ago
  The 14th Amendment is already the law. SCOTUS has previously ruled that the exception to birthright are quite narrow. This EO is all about getting the case back to SCOTUS so they can change a previous ruling. Legal Eagle has a good rundown of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH3v5aEe_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH3v5aEe_g
laristine 2y ago
Trump issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship in America.
- verdverm 2y ago
  Expect this to go all the way to SCOTUS. I would imagine multiple lower courts will rule on it in the near-term, probably with injunctions and such. Multiple lawsuits challenging it have already been prepared and will be filed shortly Certainly reminiscent of Bannon's shock and awe strategy from '16
  - laristine 2y ago
    ACLU already sued. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advocates-sue-trump-administration-over-birthright-citizenship-executive-order https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advoca...
- rvz 2y ago
  False. I would have agreed with you if this order also included ending it also for all "US Citizens" and "lawful permanent residents", but it does not. Read it again and you can clearly see that it is for those who are *not born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents"*. >>> (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.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    it's still ending _birthright_ citizenship; if you're born to US citizens (wherever you may be born) you get citizenship through your parents, not birthright.
    - rvz 2y ago
      > it's still ending _birthright_ citizenship; The important distinction is that this order is only for: >>> those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents". This order does NOT affect children born IN the US to US citizens or "lawful permanent residents" while the OP suggested that this order was "ending birthright citizenship in America" which that is totally false, otherwise it would have included everyone including US citizens or permanent residents, but it does not. Only for those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents".
declan_roberts 2y ago
Birthright citizenship is one of those things that I thought was with us since the beginning. Turns out I was wrong.
- zephyrus1985 2y ago
  I believe it now doesn't apply for to parents that are here illegally. Not taking sides but just pointing the nuance
  - gnulinux 2y ago
    Did you read the executive order? It clearly states it also covers parents that are here legally through visas like H, F etc... It is not just about illegal immigration. E.g. if you work in the US on H and have a kid with a student on F visa, the kid will not be a US citizen going forward (starting in 30 days). I'd be curious to hear the argument that people legally working or studying here aren't "subject to jurisdiction" of. People on H1B for a while file the exact same taxes citizens file (because they're US persons for tax purposes). Not sure how are they legally not subject to jurisdiction of?
    - laristine 2y ago
      In any angle of view, those people are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
      - cherry_tree 2y ago
        From the text: >or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth. It specifically says the child of someone here on a work visa would not be a citizen. If that person became a citizen or permanent resident after the child’s birth, the child would need to pursue residency/citizenship through their own merit as a non-citizen. What visa is given to non citizens born while in the US I wonder?
wumeow 2y ago
> Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order. Well, at least they aren't trying to enforce this retroactively.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Very few countries have birthright citizenship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli). I still find it to be a strange concept. It seems like in the US, birthright citizenship isn’t granted in the constitution or laws directly but was the result of a court ruling, which is extra strange. I’m not sure if this is the right way to go about it, but I think removing it is the right direction to have a sense of sovereignty and make citizenship meaningful.
- laristine 2y ago
  The United States has a lot of unique traits that few other countries have (American exceptionalism), birthright citizenship being just one characteristic. I'd think an executive order is just testing the water, but to change it definitively requires a constitutional amendment.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    Or a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution however they'd like it to be.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  The 14th Amendment was a direct rebuttal of a court case: Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott ruled that Black people could not be citizens, because they were property not people, including a "free negro" because they descended from property. The Citizenship Clause intentionally rebuts the ruling. There is no other way to interpret the Clause.
- motorest 2y ago
  > Very few countries have birthright citizenship Very few countries have a huge statue at the entrance of a major port with a big bronze plaque bearing the message "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (...)".
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  It’s most of the Americas; 3 dozen or so in total. Saying “very few” is cover for Trump to lie that it’s “only one”.
readthenotes1 2y ago
[flagged]
daft_pink 2y ago
Pretty sure the courts are going to strike this one down. Like Biden’s FTC, Trump’s immigration proclamations are going to go nowhere fast.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  Bringing norms to a gunfight?
ryan_lane 2y ago
Every Trump related post today is being flagged. Where's the editorial oversight here, @dang?
- dang 2y ago
  HN isn't a current affairs site, so users tend to flag most of the hottest stories-of-the-day. That's expected and desirable. Is there a specific submission that you feel should be getting a discussion on HN? Keep in mind that the mandate here is thoughtful conversation about stories that gratify intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
mcphage 2y ago
What garbage, what absolute filth. What an embarrassment to our nation.

30 points by laristine 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Isn't this something Congress would have to pass a law on? EO's can be overturned by the next President.

verdverm 2y ago
The 14th Amendment is already the law. SCOTUS has previously ruled that the exception to birthright are quite narrow. This EO is all about getting the case back to SCOTUS so they can change a previous ruling. Legal Eagle has a good rundown of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH3v5aEe_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH3v5aEe_g

laristine 2y ago

Trump issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship in America.

verdverm 2y ago
Expect this to go all the way to SCOTUS. I would imagine multiple lower courts will rule on it in the near-term, probably with injunctions and such. Multiple lawsuits challenging it have already been prepared and will be filed shortly Certainly reminiscent of Bannon's shock and awe strategy from '16
- laristine 2y ago
  ACLU already sued. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advocates-sue-trump-administration-over-birthright-citizenship-executive-order https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/immigrants-rights-advoca...
rvz 2y ago
False. I would have agreed with you if this order also included ending it also for all "US Citizens" and "lawful permanent residents", but it does not. Read it again and you can clearly see that it is for those who are *not born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents"*. >>> (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.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  it's still ending _birthright_ citizenship; if you're born to US citizens (wherever you may be born) you get citizenship through your parents, not birthright.
  - rvz 2y ago
    > it's still ending _birthright_ citizenship; The important distinction is that this order is only for: >>> those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents". This order does NOT affect children born IN the US to US citizens or "lawful permanent residents" while the OP suggested that this order was "ending birthright citizenship in America" which that is totally false, otherwise it would have included everyone including US citizens or permanent residents, but it does not. Only for those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents".

declan_roberts 2y ago

Birthright citizenship is one of those things that I thought was with us since the beginning. Turns out I was wrong.

zephyrus1985 2y ago
I believe it now doesn't apply for to parents that are here illegally. Not taking sides but just pointing the nuance
- gnulinux 2y ago
  Did you read the executive order? It clearly states it also covers parents that are here legally through visas like H, F etc... It is not just about illegal immigration. E.g. if you work in the US on H and have a kid with a student on F visa, the kid will not be a US citizen going forward (starting in 30 days). I'd be curious to hear the argument that people legally working or studying here aren't "subject to jurisdiction" of. People on H1B for a while file the exact same taxes citizens file (because they're US persons for tax purposes). Not sure how are they legally not subject to jurisdiction of?
  - laristine 2y ago
    In any angle of view, those people are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
    - cherry_tree 2y ago
      From the text: >or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth. It specifically says the child of someone here on a work visa would not be a citizen. If that person became a citizen or permanent resident after the child’s birth, the child would need to pursue residency/citizenship through their own merit as a non-citizen. What visa is given to non citizens born while in the US I wonder?

wumeow 2y ago

> Subsection (a) of this section shall apply only to persons who are born within the United States after 30 days from the date of this order. Well, at least they aren't trying to enforce this retroactively.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Very few countries have birthright citizenship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli). I still find it to be a strange concept. It seems like in the US, birthright citizenship isn’t granted in the constitution or laws directly but was the result of a court ruling, which is extra strange. I’m not sure if this is the right way to go about it, but I think removing it is the right direction to have a sense of sovereignty and make citizenship meaningful.

laristine 2y ago
The United States has a lot of unique traits that few other countries have (American exceptionalism), birthright citizenship being just one characteristic. I'd think an executive order is just testing the water, but to change it definitively requires a constitutional amendment.
- jfengel 2y ago
  Or a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution however they'd like it to be.
jeffbee 2y ago
The 14th Amendment was a direct rebuttal of a court case: Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott ruled that Black people could not be citizens, because they were property not people, including a "free negro" because they descended from property. The Citizenship Clause intentionally rebuts the ruling. There is no other way to interpret the Clause.
motorest 2y ago
> Very few countries have birthright citizenship Very few countries have a huge statue at the entrance of a major port with a big bronze plaque bearing the message "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (...)".
ttyprintk 2y ago
It’s most of the Americas; 3 dozen or so in total. Saying “very few” is cover for Trump to lie that it’s “only one”.

readthenotes1 2y ago

[flagged]

daft_pink 2y ago

Pretty sure the courts are going to strike this one down. Like Biden’s FTC, Trump’s immigration proclamations are going to go nowhere fast.

jeffbee 2y ago
Bringing norms to a gunfight?

ryan_lane 2y ago

Every Trump related post today is being flagged. Where's the editorial oversight here, @dang?

dang 2y ago
HN isn't a current affairs site, so users tend to flag most of the hottest stories-of-the-day. That's expected and desirable. Is there a specific submission that you feel should be getting a discussion on HN? Keep in mind that the mandate here is thoughtful conversation about stories that gratify intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

mcphage 2y ago

What garbage, what absolute filth. What an embarrassment to our nation.