this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
187 points (97.9% liked)

politics

30531 readers
2906 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration has sought to restrict citizenship to children with at least one parent with citizenship or permanent legal status.

Alito warned in his dissent the ruling could have “grotesque results,” including an encouragement of “birth tourism,” and national security ramifications.

“If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution,” he wrote. “But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country.

“In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future,” he continued.

Alito accused the majority opinion of relying “on precedent that glosses the text” of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and that their argument “fails on textualist grounds.”

The conservative justice specifically pointed to the 14th Amendment’s reference to a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction of,” arguing that the court’s majority failed to consider issues of dual citizenship.

For that last bit related to being “subject to the jurisdiction of," is he suggesting that foreigners aren't subject to criminal prosecutions? Like, if some gal who is foreign and lacks citizenship/greencard/visa/foreign service/etc. snuck in and randomly shoots someone, they'd not be subject to US prosecution? What if they're also apprehended with a ton of Schedule 1 narcotics? We supposed to be like "Ope! She's not subject to US jurisdiction. So, we better send her home with a stern finger wagging."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 103 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

Given that birthright citizenship has been the rule since the Civil War, is he saying that all of subsequent American history is an example of these “grotesque results”?

[–] dmtalon@infosec.pub 52 points 3 weeks ago

He doesn't expect you to think!

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 51 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

My family’s been here since 1733 and never took a test. If birthright citizenship isn’t real then am I a citizen?

And if we’ve never been citizens, who do we sue to get back all the taxes we paid?

[–] homes@piefed.world 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Don’t forget all of the back taxes you owe to the British crown!

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

Them Limeys will have to come and take them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ButtermilkBiscuit@feddit.nl 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is who the pedo squad republicans nominate for scotus - people who don't understand or respect the constitution.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 71 points 3 weeks ago

Alito's birth was a serious mistake.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 55 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (12 children)

“Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way,” Alito wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

Hmm, let's look a the actual text of the 14th amendment:

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.

The word "solely" doesn't appear there once. There is absolutely nothing there that states that being a citizen of another country disqualifies you, or your kids. (If it did, it would be impossible to be naturalized as a US citizen without first renouncing your original citizenship). It's obvious that this clause was meant to apply to diplomats and other people who get some forms of immunity from local prosecution.

What an asshat....

[–] joekar1990@lemmy.world 31 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's ironic because Alitos family didn't arrive from Italy until 1914 as well.

[–] grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one 13 points 3 weeks ago

& us Italians weren’t even considered to be white people here until around the 1920’s

[–] breezeblock@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

What kind of clown argues the constitution is unconstitutional

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Alito wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Its primary purpose was to secure rights for formerly enslaved people, establishing birthright citizenship, barring states from denying "equal protection of the laws," and ensuring "due process" for all individuals. Slaves were freed in 1865. Wonder how and when the former slaves became obligated to owe allegiance to the US after it had them enslaved for half their life.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Not to mention, that would mean that citizenship wouldn't be granted to kids who have at least one parent with dual citizenship. As those kids could potentially be under the jurisdiction of the other country.

His reasoning in his dissent doesn't hold up to even basic scrutiny.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

Not to mention, that would mean that citizenship wouldn’t be granted to kids who have at least one parent with dual citizenship.

The Nazis had the same way of looking at ancestry for determining whether someone was Jewish.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 6 points 3 weeks ago

Citizens don't owe allegiance to a state.

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 6 points 3 weeks ago

The jurisdiction clause was also there so native Americans on reservations didn’t get citizenship.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 30 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

He’s a serious mistake.

Given this ruling, if there are future considerations by Court I’m sure he’ll now recuse himself /s

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] laranis@lemmy.zip 28 points 3 weeks ago

"Birth tourism" - Moot point. They're solving that by making the country so shitty in every way that no one wants to be US citizens.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 28 points 3 weeks ago

He's such a joke. If the results will be disastrous in the future, we would have seen that over the last century. And he knows this, which just shows that he doesn't give a fuck about reality or facts.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 25 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Alito is a disgrace. I hope he's removed from power soon

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Removing him would give the jackass the opportunity to appoint a new ACB or Boofer Cavenaugh.

[–] elbucho@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Both of whom, btw, voted that the 14th amendment was constitutional.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago

Can't wait to read this fascist scumbag's obituary.

[–] toomanypancakes@crazypeople.online 21 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Let me know when somebody "slams" alito into a fucking curb.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 18 points 3 weeks ago

Every new breath Alito takes is a fucking mistake

[–] Uranus_Hz@lemmy.zip 17 points 3 weeks ago

The US Supreme Court was tasked with determining if the US Constitution was constitutional. And three of the justices failed at this very basic task.

[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's been in effect for over 200 years, but now it's a problem. Fuck this guy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Bah! What are the Supreme Court Justices doing, relying on this pesky thing called 'precedent'? They're supposed to be making up justifications as they see fit, based on who invited them to their yacht or resort retreat!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Steve@startrek.website 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one 13 points 3 weeks ago

Alito himself is a serious Baby Bush era mistake that has inflicted his toxicity on the US public for a couple of decades now

[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The Constitution is ~~LAW!~~ a MISTAKE!

-Republicans (UNLESS it's After a Bunch of Kindergarteners get MOWED DOWN by a Gunman!)

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 6 points 3 weeks ago

One of the court reporting people on NPR said something like "This is a perfect case where all they had to do was point at the Constitution and not take up the case".

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

This asshole is such a broken individual. He should be impeached. The fact that he has so much influence over millions says a lot about our system.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

Literal traitor says what?

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

On the other hand, many people now know that Alito was a mistake.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Alito's being on the bench is a serious mistake.

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] qarbone@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

The only people coming to the US now are the truly desperate refugees that couldn't afford to go anywhere better.

[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Pontificate on a pike, Sam.

[–] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

@Sunflier@lemmy.world I was thinking the same exact thing. If someone is in the country and not under the jurisdiction of said country they would have complete immunity in my humble opinion.

Guy is an idiot among other unflattering things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The text of the amendment could not be more clear. Alito is really a traitorous prick. Frankly, I’m sympathetic to the idea that the Supreme Court should be disbanded altogether. We have a representative legislature, we don’t need these fuckers.

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Naw we really do need the court but there needs to be some big changes to it like expanding the size and putting in 18 - 25 year term limits.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] axx@slrpnk.net 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

No fences, no borders, free movement for all.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

They are seriously terrified of “white replacement theory.”
The heritage foundation has poisoned all three branches of our government. It’s disgusting.

load more comments
view more: next ›