Donald Trump says he will sign executive order to end birthright citizenship "on day one" (video)

Originally published at: Donald Trump says he will sign executive order to end birthright citizenship "on day one" (video) | Boing Boing


In addition to that being shitty… it’s also not possible. An executive order can’t override a constitutional amendment…

Come On Wtf GIF


Just more empty pandering to his base: Know-Nothing bigots who are too ignorant to know that, as much as they want it to work that way, it doesn’t work that way.


Presumably, citing “illegal aliens” and “migrant asylum seekers” will not prevent the wives and mistresses of Russian oligarchs from renting Florida condos to birth their dual-citizen babies.


Of course, if the fascists retake power, the 1st, 14th, 19th and 27th are all on the chopping block. When you own the judiciary, they let you do it. :face_vomiting:


IIRC Trump-owned properties are popular with that demographic.


If Thomas can repeal the 13th Amendment he would.


Apparently it’s come to may the most psychopathic be installed as prez. The other side will need to answer in kind. Sanity can’t win and stay funded. Feeling bleak enough yet?


Trump isn’t president right now, only was by the narrowest of margins, and it’s not inevitable that he will be again. The other side doesn’t need to copy him – it always does better standing up for real values than trying to win over conservatives.


I’m sorry, but by doing what? How is mimicking this fascist shit helpful? What does that look like, in your view? What is the logical outcome of those kinds of actions?

Meme Reaction GIF by Robert E Blackmon


No, not really, no. That’s giving up. Ain’t gonna do that.

(My usual response to that kind of nonsense.)


Doing away with birthright citizenship has been a holy grail for the right wing for more than a century. There is a school of thought that argues it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment, but just a “correct” understanding of the intent of the 14th Amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language. It’s based on twisted legal and historical reasoning that doesn’t stand up to reasonable scrutiny, but it’s there to provide a foothold for any court bankrupt enough to embrace it.

As comforting as it would be to dismiss it as impossible under the 14th Amendment, can anyone honestly argue that the current majority on the Court would never overturn US v. Wong Kim Ark and rule that the last 125 years of immigration law were wrongly decided? After Dobbs, I don’t think anything is off the table.


The 27th? I think you mean the 26th. 27th is about changes in Congressional salary.

1 Like

Donald Trump says he will sign executive order to end birthright citizenship “on day one” (video) I am a Nazi."



So the same as all the other originalist hot garbage then…


It’s surprising how many people think the US President is a king who can do whatever he wants. I wonder if this is a side effect of the amount of personality cult that surrounds US elections? It’s all very very much about the person, not their ideas. This is in sharp contrast to parliamentary systems like the UK and Canada where we don’t vote for the person, we vote for a set of ideas (represented by the party) and the party chooses their leader (sometimes before, during, or after the election, and sometimes more than once).

I’m not going to die on a hill saying which system is better in practice, but at least conceptually I prefer the notion of voting for a set of ideas rather than a person.


I think our general understanding of how our systems functions for most people comes out of popular culture (like too many things and how we understand them). The heroic President has been a trope in our culture for a while now, and so is part of that expectation on both the moderate left and the right. The far right is obviously pushing for a “strong man” while I think on the moderate left you have the “transformational figure” (like how many view Barack Obama, which helped him win the election in 2008).

To some degree, yeah. That’s a general byproduct of the rise of mass media anyways, which is a byproduct of modernity and the dominance of the capitalist ideological framework… the real has been made more real, as Guy Debord might have argued.

I think there is some truth to that, but that hasn’t meant that there still isn’t ways to game that. Just look at how Brexit was forced through playing off that same sort of “cult of” idea, but via a set of ideas vs. an individual.

I don’t know… I doubt there is a perfect system, and I see both strengths and weaknesses in both our weird-ass system, and a Parliamentary system. But I think we also need to look a level above that, and see what the larger systems holding this all together is, and what impact that has and can have.


So maybe some of the lawyers could chime in. Clearly he couldn’t do that legally under the Constitution. But if did do an EO, what would most likely happen? Sure there would instantly be a legal challenge, but in the meantime, would the system that issues citizenship just keep going, or would there be a pause? Or would it maybe matter who was in charge of that department?

What is legal/not legal has never really been a concern for Trump. I’d like to know how sturdy the guardrail is if he tried?


It all boils down to racism


I, too, can spew nonsense all day long and make claims I will never back up, for I, too, am a mediocre white man. Just not a rich one.