this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
301 points (99.3% liked)

politics

30506 readers
2963 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 End Birthright Citizenship for Territories Act, introduced by Representative Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican, would amend federal laws that grant U.S. citizenship at birth to people born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. The legislation would limit those provisions to people born before January 1, 2027, effectively ending automatic citizenship for future births unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Birthright citizenship is the legal principle that grants U.S. citizenship to most people born on American soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The administration has sought to restrict the long-standing interpretation of birthright citizenship, but those efforts stalled on June 30, when the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's executive order.

The case that prompted the ruling, Trump v. Barbara, had addressed whether children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present are entitled to citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. The court held that such children are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The new proposal is part of the Trump administration's push to reduce immigration levels and tighten restrictions on who can qualify for U.S. citizenship.

So, what, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are no longer subject to the laws of the United States? So, there is no federal court in Puerto Rico exercising jurisdiction over the territory? What about the US Virgin Islands?

Does that mean they don't have to pay taxes to the fascist regime?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hell yeah let's make children responsible for their parents actions!!! Let's make even more stateless people!!!

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As I mentioned in other threads, there is a Universal Services concept that allows EVERYBODY to have basic shelter, food, utilities, transport, and so on. Money is for luxuries, and the Universal Income is for citizens. While it would suck for immigrants and children without full citizenship to not receive a full basic income, it also prevents weird mechanics. For example, someone marrying dozens of girls, just to tap into the UBI of their children.

Policies are tradeoffs between prosperity, security, anti-corruption, and so on. There is no such thing as a perfect solution, just mitigations of the worst outcomes.

However, we can try to design the mitigations and tradeoffs to be optimal for their intent. For example, as someone accrues citizenship while living within the nation, they unlock increasing levels of Universal Income. So someone who has lived in the nation for 3 years, gets $3,000* UBI each year.

0000

*Because the concepts of Universal Living is based on a completely different economic approach, inflation of currency isn't recognizable by current standards of US cash. Especially if there are wealth and asset caps, paired with fixed job incomes.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe if provided by every country in the world but surely by then hard borders will be fully outdated.

You don't need to give UBI to children.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I disagree. By learning how to use money early in their lives, children can be much better at managing it as adults. Further, I believe that students, be they on the standard track or in college, should be getting an increased income based on their grades. This gives an material reward for learning and mastering the discipline to do stuff, which are lifelong skills that are best developed early in life.

In the case of children, we can also split their income - they receive a portion directly, and another part goes into a nest egg. When they reach age 20, all the money that goes into the nest egg is released to them - which they can immediately spend on a house, car, and other things that let them leave the nest.

The American tradition of just kicking kids out of their parent's home without support or forcing them into debt over schooling, is a shitty one. Society can do much better, by thinking about what kind of lives we want everyone to have - and how to structure the establishment of that life.

00000

As part of this, money in a Universal Services society plays an extremely important role: Culture. Money is used purely for things of luxury - bedsheets with characters on them, going to a bar to hang out with the crew, being able to choose entertainment, to buy untasted food, traveling the nation and trying out stuff...

All of that develops culture within a person. By allowing all citizens to have some money by default, they get to explore what they can be. A child, therefore, can become their best self.

As it currently stands, a child is hostage to the beliefs, character, and circumstances of their parents. We can make it much easier for children to be free to become themselves.