The US president issued an executive order in 2025 that seeks to undo constitutional right to birthright citizenship

The US president issued an executive order in 2025 that seeks to undo constitutional right to birthright citizenship

The US supreme court on Wednesday appeared poised to protect birthright citizenship, the longstanding policy that babies born in the US are American citizens, in what would be a blow to a key immigration policy for Donald Trump.

The court heard oral arguments with Trump himself in attendance inside the courtroom’s public gallery. A majority of justices asked questions indicating skepticism about the government’s attempt to overturn birthright citizenship. But while some expected the case to be a clearcut win for those challengingthe government, it is unclear how many justices might side with Trump. A decision is expected this summer.

If birthright citizenship is overturned, hundreds of thousands of children born annually would be blocked from US citizenship.

  • [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish
    245·
    4 days ago

    “What was really meant was…” is how they turned the second amendment, clearly about forming a militia for national defense, into being about personal self defense.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The first half I made bold is what the second half is based on. It is about having an armed society so it can be a well regulated militia. Now those same words just mean people get to have guns for whatever reason they want and not because they are part of a militia.

    In this case, they are pretending that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means something completely fictional based on what they want it to mean blatantly contradicting over a century of clear reinforcement of what it literally means.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      22·
      4 days ago

      That’s not how the 2nd is taken at all. The founders had literally just fought and won a war against a tyrannical government using privately owned arms.

      Hell even Jefferson’s quote from one of his letters points this out: “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” .

      Do you think he is saying that people should fight rebellions with pitchforks?

      Right now is the time to be getting armed, not trying to disarm us.

      • [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish
        11·
        4 days ago

        I quoted the amendment, which I am all in favor of. In fact, I am in favor of well regulated ownership by anyone who can pass a gun safety course. While I am in favor of background checks to reduce the chances of someone buying a gun when they are not eligible due to a violent felony or similar reasons (part of that well regulated thing), I am against tracking those background checks or a gun registry.

        My dislike of stupid court rulings that contradict the amendment is based on what is written and putting it on individuals who want to play rambo doesn’t mean I don’t like the basic concept.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          23·
          4 days ago

          I quoted the amendment, which I am all in favor of. In fact, I am in favor of well regulated ownership by anyone who can pass a gun safety course. While I am in favor of background checks to reduce the chances of someone buying a gun when they are not eligible due to a violent felony or similar reasons (part of that well regulated thing), I am against tracking those background checks or a gun registry.

          The well regulated part means in working order. Not that the government gets to decide who can and cannot own arms.

          If you’re ok with that, then you’re ok with the current regime trying to label LGBTQ+ people as a mental illness, so they can deny them the right to bear arms.

          That’s why you shouldn’t be ok with it. When a group that’s like the current regime is in power they’re going to try and pull shit like that. Which they did btw and even the NRA(puke) was against it.

          My dislike of stupid court rulings that contradict the amendment is based on what is written and putting it on individuals who want to play rambo doesn’t mean I don’t like the basic concept.

          But the ruling didn’t contradict the amendment.

          Hamilton Federalist paper #28:

          If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

          This is what the founders thought of the 2nd amendment. That the government should not be the ones with a monopoly on force.