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.
>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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jurisdiction has to do with the location of the birth.
If a child is born on US soil - whether that be US proper or US embassies in foreign countries (which are treated as US soil), they are automatically a citizen.
Note that it also explicitly skips foreign nationals born inside foreign embassies, which are treated as sovereign land of the hosted country - e.g., a French Embassy is French land, so a child born to a French ambassador is not a US citizen.
The argument that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction would also be followed by the absurdity that law enforcement could not arrest them for crimes and ICE could not deport them... due to lack of jurisdiction.
No, they decided that any particular federal judge is not King and that if there's going to be broad spread relief, there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Some of us can trace ancestry to service in the revolutionary war.
Does this make you more of a citizen than literally any other? It shouldn't.
Dual citizens have somewhere else to go when the ship sinks. They're never going to be as invested in the future of the country as those who don't.
It means I still have an advantage because my ancestors did not manage to completely squander the land grants given as a result of that service...
Does it mean that the lady I met last year who flew from Brazil to have her babies in the US did a right thing?
That's the question for the court
I can't. My family has been here for only about five generations.
Probably legally, but I doubt I can prove that.
Bye.
As of right now it means they can still be kidnapped and deported while we figure out what that means.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jurisdiction has to do with the location of the birth.
If a child is born on US soil - whether that be US proper or US embassies in foreign countries (which are treated as US soil), they are automatically a citizen.
Note that it also explicitly skips foreign nationals born inside foreign embassies, which are treated as sovereign land of the hosted country - e.g., a French Embassy is French land, so a child born to a French ambassador is not a US citizen.
The argument that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction would also be followed by the absurdity that law enforcement could not arrest them for crimes and ICE could not deport them... due to lack of jurisdiction.
And yet here we are. This court has decided that Trump is a king and that’s pretty much it.
No, they decided that any particular federal judge is not King and that if there's going to be broad spread relief, there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44398710
Federal court orders aren't federal it seems.
They're federal district courts.
Not relevant in the history of the country until today.
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.
Circuit splits have existed since the beginning. It's always mattered.