this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
99 points (99.0% liked)

politics

30242 readers
1957 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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 31 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (7 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....

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

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

[–] joekar1990@lemmy.world 21 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 20 hours ago

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

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 11 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours 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 7 points 21 hours ago (1 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 4 points 20 hours 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.

[–] breezeblock@lemmy.ca 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

What kind of clown argues the constitution is unconstitutional

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

Republicans. Constantly.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 5 points 19 hours ago

who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

Like some kind of... Citizen?

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 18 hours ago

Citizens don't owe allegiance to a state.

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Well, you actually do renounce any prior citizenships during the naturalization process.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 18 hours ago

Not for the U.S.

You have to do it if the other country doesn't allow dual citizenship and has diplomatic relations with the U.S. to the point where the U.S. enforces it.

[–] klugerama@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Do you have a source for that? The US State Department website says you don't.

[–] Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The oath of alliegance (I can't do fancy links on mobile easily: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learn-about-citizenship/the-naturalization-interview-and-test/naturalization-oath-of-allegiance-to-the-united-states-of-america) you have to take as part of the naturalization process includes a renunciation clause. The link you have only talks about being a dual citizen through birth or gaining another citizenship while being a US citizen, not naturalizing while a citizen of elsewhere.

[–] diverging@piefed.social 4 points 17 hours ago

The short answer is No. United States allows foreign nationals to naturalize and become U.S. citizens and the country also allows people to hold dual nationality. People who are citizens of foreign countries may become U.S. citizens and they may not be required to give up their current nationality.

Renouncing your previous citizenship is not really up to the U.S. Government but rather your previous country. Citizenship laws differ from country to country and some countries do not allow the citizens to hold dual citizenship.

https://www.uscitizenship.info/us-citizenship/give-up-previous-citizenship-after-becoming-us-citizen/

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

That oath doesn't mean anything unless the other country recognizes it means something.

Here's a link to a legal firm that claims that Canada just ignores that oath, and a Canadian who becomes an American citizen doesn't lose their Canadian citizenship. On the other hand, the Germans apparently care, and revoke your German citizenship once you get naturalized in the US, all because of the oat h