Trump takes birthright citizenship battle to the Supreme Court

The color difference between his face and his hands.

This is a pathway to Starship Trooper's soldiers being guaranteed citizenship. Imagine having a child here and they aren't a citizen but you are.
- Imagine if only old people ran the government... What a nightmare that would be.... Ah fuck.
- The whole MAGA movement can be described as people who did not get the point in Starship Troopers.
  
  Maybe they read the book instead of watching the movie?
- Jus soli (birthright citizenship based on where you are born) is not that common to be fair. I don't think it's the standard in Europe for example. You have to reside (legally) in a country for a certain number of years AND pay taxes for them to be eligible to get citinzenship
  
  it's very common in colonial societies like most of the Americas. without this type of law there wouldn't be any American citizens. even before the 14th amendment we had birth right citizenship by common law precedence
  
  I don't really care how common it is?
  
  That sounds like just another method of exploitation. No dig at any specific countries. I just know in the US this will be used to exploit, isolate, and entrap people.
  
  Here's a map of birthright vs inherited citizenship. As you can see, most of the Americas have birthright citizenship.
- It's not guaranteed, but service does help get citizenship: https://www.uscis.gov/military/naturalization-through-military-service

They'll give it to him.
I made this prediction back when he started saying he wanted to remove birth right citizenship. It's just a matter of time

Someone should ask Trump if he is successful with this and deporting permanent residents for being against the government, what would stop the next president from deporting Baron Trump?
- "What next President?" - Trump, probably
  
  We can't let him. No Gods, No Kings

Trump takes birthright citizenship battle to his Supreme Court
FTFY

Headline is a tad ambitious. This action is procedural in nature and does not / will not address the merits of the case. The Trump admin is asking the Supreme Court to strike down the three national injunctions and limit the scope of the birthright orders to only apply to citizens in the states where it was granted.
- the Trump administration says
  “Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” the filing says. “Those universal injunctions prohibit a Day 1 Executive Order from being enforced anywhere in the country, as to ‘hundreds of thousands’ of unspecified individuals who are ‘not before the court nor identified by the court.’”
  While totally ignoring the fact that reason why there are so many injunctions is Trump keeps ignoring laws and the Constitution. An immediate injunction is entirely appropriate in that case.
  Besides, it's not like the lower court judge issues the injunction and that's the end of the story. There is still litigation, and everything can get appealed. Limiting the scope of those injunctions will only serve to have Trump selectively ignore the Constitution for states what like what he is doing, which is not how it's supposed to work at all.
  
  So he wants injuction to have to come from each individual state, each stating it breaks the law.
  Seems like an awful waste, I wonder what DOGE would have to say about that
  🤣🤣🤣
  
  Well yea, that's exactly what he's after: Small parts of the country, mainly Federal Circuits that aren't perceived to be "friendly" will have injunctions while those that grab their ankles for Trump and give him whatever he wants (i.e. the 5th) don't do an injunction and the states are free to not grant citizenship at will.
  Conservatives relied on these national injunctions during the Biden admin just the way liberal groups are now. It's dangerous to prognosticate with this Supreme Court but nationalwide injunctions have their purpose and I don't see this changing.
  It should also be pointed out that Roberts has expressed dismay already with forum shopping. In 2023(?) he tried to pressure the Northern District of Texas to change its venue rules so parties couldn't just keep filing in Amarillo. The presiding judge of the ND declined. So this has been an issue on Roberts's radar for awhile. That may lead to some unforseen changes.

I’m really curious as to what half asses reason the SCROTUS will give to let Krasnov get away with this.

Do illegal shit
Have county try and stop illegal shit
Have state try and stop illegal shit
Have district try and stop illegal shit
????
Profit
Wait, I finally figured it out. In order to profit you just use the supreme court.

Here before 6-3 to get fucked

Yes we need to make it so our glorious leader decides who is a citizen.

Birthright citizenship is a law made at a time when the American population was significantly smaller and wanted to grow to be able to provide more workforce to bring about progress, which benefitted everyone. Now, progress is ending/slowing down, and demand for human labor is declining; and a shrinking population is a good thing because it matches that shrinking demand for labor. Immigration is a bad thing because it increases the population size instead of decreasing it. And also, the birthrate should drop lower to reduce the supply of workforce, keep up wages (via supply-demand of labor) and better the living conditions of the people.
- Cool. Get a 2/3 majority in Congress to agree and have 3/4 of states ratify then…
- It was made at a time when the victors of the civil war realized that racist loosers would try to deny citizenship to former slaves.
- It's the 14th Amendment. If SCOTUS tries to find some bullshit reason it doesn't mean what it clearly says, then we can freely ignore anything they say.
  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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- hey Gemini: Is this remark on the idea of removing birthright citizenship in the USA reasonable? If so why? If not why?
  The remark presents a perspective on birthright citizenship that is not widely accepted by economists or demographers, and it contains several flawed assumptions and arguments. Here's a breakdown: Points of Contention:
  Historical Context:
  While it's true the 14th Amendment, which established birthright citizenship, was ratified after the Civil War, its primary purpose was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and ensure their equal protection under the law. It wasn't solely about increasing the population for economic growth.
  The idea that the US population was "significantly smaller and wanted to grow" is too simplistic. Population growth has always been a complex issue, influenced by various social, economic, and political factors.
  "Progress is ending/slowing down":
  The claim that "progress is ending/slowing down" is subjective and debatable. While some sectors may experience slowdowns, others, like technology, continue to advance. Economic cycles also have periods of growth and slowdown.
  Economic growth is not ending.
  "Demand for human labor is declining":
  While automation and technological advancements are changing the nature of work, they are not necessarily eliminating the overall demand for human labor. They are shifting the demand towards different skill sets.
  There is still a very large demand for human labor, but the type of labor demanded is shifting.
  "A shrinking population is a good thing":
  A shrinking population can have severe economic consequences, including:
  A smaller workforce, leading to labor shortages.
  A reduced tax base, making it harder to fund social programs.
  Slower economic growth.
  An aging population, which puts strains on social security and healthcare systems.
  The concept that a shrinking population is universally "good" is not supported by mainstream economic thought.
  "Immigration is a bad thing":
  Immigration has historically played a vital role in the US economy, providing a source of labor, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
  Immigrants often fill labor shortages in key sectors and contribute to economic growth.
  Immigration is a very complex issue, and to state that it is a bad thing is a gross over simplification.
  "Birthrate should drop lower to reduce the supply of workforce, keep up wages":
  While it's true that a tighter labor market can lead to higher wages, artificially suppressing the birthrate has long-term negative consequences, as mentioned earlier.
  Relying solely on a declining birthrate to manage wage levels is an unsustainable and ethically questionable approach.
  A declining birthrate can have major negative impacts on social security systems. In summary: The remark presents a simplistic and flawed view of economics, demographics, and history. It relies on generalizations and ignores the complex interplay of factors that influence population, labor markets, and economic growth.
  
  Thanka Gemini for that, but all the arguments that you just brought up are looking in the past, and on empirical data. I'm looking on the future, and doing analysis and thought/logic processes to figure out what lies in front of us. I guess i will have to live with having an isolated perspective here.