Trump signs new orders to restrict birthright citizenship after Supreme Court ruling

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-orders-b3028955.html

Donald Trump signed a pair of executive orders on Thursday aimed at restricting the right of birthright citizenship despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling overturning his attempt to ban it.

At a White House ceremony, the president was flanked by Stephen Miller, the architect of his deportation program, as he unveiled two orders targeting birthright citizenship and “birth tourism”, which Republicans argue is a massive source of fraud.

The first will identify “certain categories of children of aliens who are not entitled to birthright citizenship”, which, according to an Axios report, will largely be used to restrict the children of foreign diplomatic staffers from being eligible for citizenship if they are born in the U.S.

Trump told reporters that he believed the orders were legal, despite the Court’s ruling. Miller used his moment in the spotlight to attack the concept of birthright citizenship and argue that it had never been the intent of the drafters of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

“As the president mentioned, the 14th Amendment was passed exclusively in the aftermath of the Civil War, so that to ensure that the children of slaves would be citizens. It had no other meaning and purpose outside of that, and that's been clear, obviously, since the day that it was passed,” said Miller. “This is not something that is even seriously contested by anybody.”

80 points · 10 comments · view on lemmy.world

10 Comments

charonn0@startrek.website · 32 pts · 26d (4 replies)

"[...] the14th Amendment was passed exclusively in the aftermath of the Civil War, so that to ensure that the children of slaves would be citizens. It had no other meaning and purpose outside of that, and that’s been clear, obviously, since the day that it was passed."

If that's his attitude towards #14, how does he feel about #2?

fubo@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 26d (1 reply)

If that’s his attitude towards #14, how does he feel about #2?

"Take the guns first, go through due process second."

hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 26d

Guaranteed he’ll find a way “interpret” the 2A to take guns away from the SRA and black panthers, by labeling them “terrorist organizations.”

Only his militarized fascist cock riders will be allowed to have weapons.

Carmakazi@piefed.social · 14 pts · 26d

Once they have full control of a MAGAfied military they have absolutely no use for civilian gun ownership, in fact it's a liability to them.

ExtremeDullard@piefed.social · 3 pts · 26d

If that’s his attitude towards #14, how does he feel about #2?

Nobody uses #2 anyway. So who cares...

Thunderbird4@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 26d

“This is not something that is even seriously contested by anybody.”

“This extremist nonsense that I just spewed is totally real, guys. Everyone agrees with me. You don’t need to ask them.”

I dunno, shithead. Seems to me like that interpretation is seriously contested by the Trump v Barbara ruling that shot down your last stab at this. It also seems pretty seriously contested by a grade school understanding of the text of the 14th amendment.

thirtyfold8625@thebrainbin.org · 2 pts · 26d (3 replies)
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 26d (2 replies)

Idiot still thinks he can rule by decree.

Rothe@piefed.social · 2 pts · 26d (1 reply)

Well, it seems like he can.

phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 22d

Most of his attempts get shot down in court, and he quietly drops them afterwards, maybe after a failed appeal if he's really in a snit.