• Quilotoa@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    30 days ago

    FYI: About 35 countries have birthright citizenship, mostly on the American continent. Over 150 countries have citizenship by descent.

    • taiyang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      30 days ago

      Yeah, I always thought that was neat since it’s mostly a happy accident from needing to allow freed slaves citizenship. I much prefer that over some sort of bloodline metric.

  • Gates9@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    30 days ago

    Alito sounded like a completely obtuse nincomcoop today. You don’t need to be a constitutional lawyer to see how full of shit the conservatives are.

  • NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    And Chief Justice John Roberts, another conservative on the bench, also had something of a mic-drop moment when Sauer tried to make the point that “we’re in a new world where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S citizen.”

    Roberts replied: “It’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”

    I expect this is where they pivot next. What does it take to amend the American constitution? Or what does it take to make a new one, given that they will try to justify that an old document does not fit the modern world

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      30 days ago

      It would be impossible in today’s political climate.

      You need >66% vote in both House and Senate, or you need a Constitutional Convention called by >66% of the state legislatures. Then you need to ratify the amendment, which requires approval by >75% of state legislatures.

      • TwilitSky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        29 days ago

        What could pass 75% of states?

        In this day and age it amazes me we ever had that level of consensus. Something is super broken.

        • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          29 days ago

          Currently 94% of states have medical marijuana yet its still federally illegal and scheduled as a drug with no medical value. That’s a good indicator of consensus not meaning jack to the federal government.

        • sartalon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          29 days ago

          Same as how they passed prohibition.

          It’s actually quite fascinating even as it is disconcerting.

          They lobbied state by state, and focused on a few key legislators, threatening their seat, until the rest fell in line.

          They didn’t have to fight them all at once, so they could focus their resources.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          29 days ago

          Its been broken for a while. Just a reminder that the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972 isn’t technically implemented because Virginia didn’t ratify until 2020 and now there are questions of expired deadlines and recisions.

      • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        30 days ago

        I hear what you’re saying, but have you considered state violence? Quoting legal requirements at this stage seems quaint.

    • Bassman1805@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      30 days ago

      2/3 majority in both chambers of congress, plus ratification by 75% of states.

      There is not a single issue that will unify the country to that degree right now.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 days ago

      It’s so wild to think that 8 billion people are just lying in wait, with full wombs, waiting to hop on a plane to have an “anchor baby”, all to pull a fast one on white xtian murica.

      • Inucune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        28 days ago

        That is 8 billion people in tax revenue! Or if you want to get more government about it, 8 billion potential soldiers. More capitalism? That is 8 billion people’s worth of criminals to put in the for-profit prison system.

        With no immigration, this country as it politically and economically exists will eat itself from the inside out.

    • mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      headlines like that are why I stopped going to any Meidas network content

      I think they really fucked themselves over with that. like, sure, some of the time it was an accurate serious statement (but not enough people in america care, so it appeared that it wasn’t actually as serious but in fact it was just the response to it that was not serious), but a lot of the time they just use clickbait titles and then you’re sitting there like wait that’s it?

      • fox2263@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        29 days ago

        I think they started it as a way to combat the rights headlines that were over the top and show right wingers its ridiculousness. But it’s getting a bit long in the tooth if you ask me.

    • BeBopALouie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      28 days ago

      He is a narcissist, humiliation is not part of their makeup. Only thing it knows is hate and derision.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      I don’t know, I tend to believe the theory that Trump ran for President because Obama made fun of him at that correspondents dinner. He looked pretty humiliated that night

      • HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        30 days ago

        That (imo) was anger at being on the wrong side of a power imbalance. Some might argue that’s humiliation, but I think it’s different. To be humiliated, you have to be able to see yourself as inferior in some way. Trump is not capable of that.

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          30 days ago

          I agree that he’s not capable of seeing himself as inferior but I think he could tell that Obama viewed him as inferior and others were agreeing with that

    • bagsy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      30 days ago

      Like every narsicist ever, he dreads and fears looking weak or silly. Its why he always try to look tough.

  • Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    30 days ago

    Humiliation? Like he’s capable of it. He tweeted they were dumb as he left. As far as he’s concerned, he won.

    • andallthat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      The famous “never wrestle with a pig…” quote was meant as a warning, but Trump made it his motto.

      He’s probably going to have it added in Gold letters to his family crest (a disgusted eagle carrying a golden diaper in its talons)

    • GutterRat42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      30 days ago

      They were all like “this btch trying to intimidate us? Let’s show him what “equal branch” means”

      • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        30 days ago

        Absolutely. Judges do not like people pulling stunts in their courtroom, and unless Trump actually goes full dictator by disolving congress, he can’t touch them and they know it. He can’t intimidate them, so all trying does is piss them off. This might cause the conservative members to stop following his playbook so much, but it’s hard to say for sure.

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          30 days ago

          Maybe, but this reasoning implies the SC isn’t gargling Trump’s balls and that seems like an incorrect conclusion to me

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          30 days ago

          This might cause the conservative members to stop following his playbook so much, but it’s hard to say for sure.

          Doubtful. If they ditch the playbook, who will pay their bribes gratuities?

  • Pyr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    28 days ago

    "We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright”…

    Don’t most countries allow birthright citizenship?

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      Pretty much the entirety of north and south america do this, probably to ensure the end of slavery and similar colonial practices. The fact Europe doesn’t do this is kinda crazy.

      • BlindFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        28 days ago

        probably to ensure the end of slavery and similar colonial practices

        Thank you for this. I never thought of birthright citizenship this way. Where could I read more about this

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          27 days ago

          Idk where I first heard this. I think it was a lawyer podcast where they were discussing the original debate around the 14th amendment.

          Basically the 14th amendment was created to overturn the Dredd Scott ruling and codify citizenship to be more similar to english common law. During the discussion many groups came up: chinese laborers, former slaves, etc. The understanding was that the amendment would provide citizenship to all these groups and that it was necessary to prevent a backslide into slavery.

  • Chais@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    30 days ago

    If they’d cancelled it, would that be retroactiv? Revoking the citizenship of every US American not of native heritage would be one hell of a move.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    29 days ago

    Aw, what a shame.

    The opinion of one old racist grand wizard grandpa doesn’t get to overturn virtually all precedent on this matter.

    It sounds like he was getting absolutely spanked in there. Even by the conservative judges, LOL.

  • CircaV@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    30 days ago

    🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣orange Shittler likely couldn’t understand what the judges were even saying 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣thinking he could intimidate them by giving them the stink eye🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣what a TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL