Very relevant to the high skilled workers who are for decades in a visa status waiting for their green card processing. Their children, if born in one of the 20ish states that did not take legal action against the executive order, will NOT be american citizens.
In fact, I dont even know whether there will be a path to citizenship or legal status in general for their children, assuming they will probably be adults by the time their parents get their green card.
rawgabbit · 3h ago
Quote
>On his first day in office this year, he signed an executive order declaring that babies born in the U.S. may not be citizens if their parents were not here legally or if the parents were here legally but on a temporary basis like a work visa.
Does this mean for workers in the US on the H1B visa, their children who are born in the US will no longer automatically be US citizens?
stego-tech · 3h ago
That’s the gist, yes, at least initially. It never stops at a given category of person, though, and you can assume next steps would be to set arbitrary milestones and dates around who is and is not a citizen based on birthright. Picture the glut of immigrants in the 1800 and 1900s who never got proper citizenship, or only had permanent residency. You can bet that the next step would be to say if you can’t point to a US Citizen direct ancestor after a given year, you’re no longer a citizen yourself.
That’s why revocation through Executive Order alone is so dangerous: its intent isn’t merely to get all undesirables today, but all undesirables ever, no matter what the definition of “undesirable” is.
throwaway48476 · 3h ago
Some of us can trace ancestry to service in the revolutionary war.
baseballdork · 3h ago
Does this make you more of a citizen than literally any other? It shouldn't.
jfengel · 3h ago
I can't. My family has been here for only about five generations.
Probably legally, but I doubt I can prove that.
Bye.
reverendsteveii · 3h ago
As of right now it means they can still be kidnapped and deported while we figure out what that means.
breakyerself · 3h ago
It's not a great sign that the supreme Court didn't uphold the injunctions, but I still have some hope that even this almost worthless supreme Court would overrule such a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.
rkagerer · 3h ago
How long do you think it will take for a case with the meat of the matter to work its way to a Supreme Court decision? I heard there were multiple suits filed within days of the order being signed; which one is closest?
breakyerself · 2h ago
I wish I could tell you. There was something in the injunctions requiring some kind of relief for the specific parties in the cases so it seems like they're trying to avoid taking it head on.
josefritzishere · 3h ago
Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.
Ancapistani · 2h ago
This EO is not even attempting to overrule the Constitution.
The 14th Amendment includes the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Is a child born to a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Historically, we’ve said “yes”. This EO instructs the executive branch to adopt the position of “no”.
This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute in a new way — which, by the way, they do very frequently.
biimugan · 1h ago
This is decidedly not equivalent to those things, even roughly. Interpreting a statute (which by the way this Supreme Court has expressly limited, which is ironic given your comment) is quite different from interpreting an amendment to the Constitution. What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller. This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes.
sundaeofshock · 3h ago
And yet here we are. This court has decided that Trump is a king and that’s pretty much it.
Not relevant in the history of the country until today.
Ancapistani · 2h ago
A felon in Chicago who (illegally) possesses an unregistered machine gun cannot be prosecuted under the National Firearms Act, while the same person in the same circumstances in New Orleans can.
There’s case law in the 7th Circuit that says that requiring a felon to register it would be tantamount to compelling self-incrimination. That case was not challenged by the BATFE at the SCOTUS level for fear of the precedent being made.
As a result, NFA violations by anyone who cannot lawfully possess a firearm at all cannot be prosecuted in the 7th Circuit. They can still be prosecuted for simple possession, of course, but not for failing to register.
throwaway48476 · 3h ago
Circuit splits have existed since the beginning. It's always mattered.
In fact, I dont even know whether there will be a path to citizenship or legal status in general for their children, assuming they will probably be adults by the time their parents get their green card.
>On his first day in office this year, he signed an executive order declaring that babies born in the U.S. may not be citizens if their parents were not here legally or if the parents were here legally but on a temporary basis like a work visa.
Does this mean for workers in the US on the H1B visa, their children who are born in the US will no longer automatically be US citizens?
That’s why revocation through Executive Order alone is so dangerous: its intent isn’t merely to get all undesirables today, but all undesirables ever, no matter what the definition of “undesirable” is.
Probably legally, but I doubt I can prove that.
Bye.
The 14th Amendment includes the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Is a child born to a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Historically, we’ve said “yes”. This EO instructs the executive branch to adopt the position of “no”.
This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute in a new way — which, by the way, they do very frequently.
There’s case law in the 7th Circuit that says that requiring a felon to register it would be tantamount to compelling self-incrimination. That case was not challenged by the BATFE at the SCOTUS level for fear of the precedent being made.
As a result, NFA violations by anyone who cannot lawfully possess a firearm at all cannot be prosecuted in the 7th Circuit. They can still be prosecuted for simple possession, of course, but not for failing to register.