Saturday, August 02, 2025

Trump Reveals Plan to Revoke Birthright Citizenship

Mark Joseph Stern: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services declared flatly that the children of immigrants who are "unlawfully present" will "no longer be U.S. citizens at birth." They will, instead, inherit the status of their parents, rendering them detainable and deportable as infants and throughout their lives. There is no indication that the government will provide some grace period before snatching up and imprisoning this new underclass of noncitizen babies; they are apparently subject to arrest from the moment of birth.

Posted by snoofy at 02:32 PM | 20 COMMENTS | permalink

More

A federal appeals court appeared ready on Friday to become the second such court in the country to rule that President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unlawful.

[image or embed]

-- CNN (@cnn.com) Aug 1, 2025 at 8:17 PM

Comments

As ALEXANDRITE said: Welcome to fascism.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2025-08-01 02:30 PM

WOWSERS That's so unconstitutional.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-08-01 02:33 PM

European Americans colonized the world and yet are some of the most xenophobic people on earth.

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-08-01 02:37 PM

At this point it's just a plan for if the court allows the end of birthright citizenship. Maybe the plan will sound so bad that the Supreme Court won't have any choice but to rule against something that is one of the easiest cases I've ever heard of.

We better hope so because if the court allows the president to ignore the 14th amendment then he'll pretty much be allowed to ignore the other 26.

#4 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2025-08-01 02:46 PM

I told you so

The SC will eventually endorse this or something close to it

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-08-01 02:57 PM

It really is amazing how right I am all the time

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-08-01 02:57 PM

It really is amazing how right I am all the time

#6 | Posted by truthhurts

Indeed. And on those rare occasions you fail I carry the slack.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2025-08-01 03:26 PM

We better hope so because if the court allows the president to ignore the 14th amendment then he'll pretty much be allowed to ignore the other 26.

#4 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

Yup. I have a 5 gallon bucket of popcorn waiting to pop when Trump becomes the first major anti-gun POTUS in our history.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2025-08-01 03:26 PM

Republicans who support this and gleefully voted for this sure are tight lipped about it!

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-01 03:55 PM

ndeed. And on those rare occasions you fail I carry the slack.

#7 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2025-08-01 03:26 PM | FLAG:

You are excellent in n those topics I am less informed on

Great teamwork

Progressive liberals like us have the advantage of living in reality

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-08-01 04:12 PM

. I have a 5 gallon bucket of popcorn waiting to pop when Trump becomes the first major anti-gun POTUS in our history.

#8 | POSTED BY JPW AT

I've said this before. ------- will throw out the 2nd amendment the minute guns threaten his power

Right now the undercurrent of violence serves him well

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-08-01 04:14 PM

#11 I've always thought, and still think, that it will be selective.

They'll find ways to target perceived opponents or people they think aren't on board with their agenda.

That way, they won't risk alienating their base and could even convince many of them to show they don't give a s^%# about the 2A either by having them support or assist.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2025-08-01 04:30 PM

None of this can be implemented, yet. However, look at it like this. Often times litigants and courts have to speculate about the practical effects of new laws. No need for speculation here, the Buffoon laid all the horribles out for God and everybody to see. You can bet that litigants and court will be paying attention.

Makes me wonder if that was Robert's thought in letting the planning go forward.

#13 | Posted by et_al at 2025-08-01 08:00 PM

Where are the Pedos....I mean MAGAts....to argue Trump can ignore the Constitution and Supreme Court?

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-08-01 08:24 PM

#13

I would love to give Roberts credit for that kind of planning. Not sure he deserves it but allowing the planning shows that the plan is to pretty flagrantly violate the constitution. So at the least if the court allows this there won't be any hiding behind an originalist take.

#15 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2025-08-02 11:07 AM

I'm waiting on this one to blow up in their face. Trumpers have this really flexible logic that "subject to the jurisdiction of" doesn't mean subject to the jurisdiction of.

The people that aren't subject are diplomats.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2025-08-02 03:13 PM

WOWSERS That's so unconstitutional.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr

Perhaps you haven't heard but the Constitution no longer matters to a majority of the current Supreme Court.

#17 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2025-08-03 03:13 AM

WOWSERS That's so unconstitutional.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr

Perhaps you haven't heard but the Constitution no longer matters to a majority of the current Supreme Court.

#18 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2025-08-03 03:13 AM

Point well taken

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-08-03 03:18 AM

America has been experiencing a fascist coup by the far right

#20 | Posted by hamburglar at 2025-08-04 12:47 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Most Dangerous Sentence in the Constitution (83 comments)

Inside a 'Whites Only' Arkansas Community (55 comments)

Donald Trump's $465M Civil Case Tossed Out by NY Court (44 comments)

Teaching Slavery Is Bad, Upsets Trump (39 comments)

Trump Threatens 'harsh Measures' If Tina Peters Not Freed (29 comments)

MAGA Is Losing It over Cracker Barrel Changing Its Logo (27 comments)

US to Screen for 'anti-Americanism' in INS Applications (27 comments)

Christian Right Argue Empathy Is a Sin (22 comments)

Gabbard Revokes Security Clearances of 37 National Security Pros (21 comments)

John Roberts and the Death of Rule of Law (19 comments)