this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
564 points (100.0% liked)

News

36063 readers
3585 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A third federal judge, Joseph N. Laplante, blocked Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.

His ruling follows similar decisions from judges in Seattle and Maryland.

The lawsuits, led by the ACLU, argue Trump’s order violates the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil.

The Trump administration contends such children are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. Legal battles continue, with appeals underway and further rulings expected in other courts.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So they could commit crimes and not have anyone to convict them?

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s a sovcits dream come true!

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

That's kind of what they argue, so they're halfway there.

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But wouldn’t that also work the other way around? If so, any white supremacist or government agency could commit any atrocity and not get convicted, because the victim wasn’t protected by any laws.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The sliver of hope there is that the law isn't usually written in terms of the one being acted on but in terms of the one doing the action. Murder is illegal regardless of the status of the victim. It doesn't say murder is the killing of a citizen, but rather a person regardless of nationality or citizenship status. Where things get a bit rockier though is in regards to constitutional protections. Things like due process it could be argued don't apply to non-citizens.

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is a good point. So, in this case, the non-citizen would be like a tourist. They have some rights too, don’t they?

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Strictly speaking no, they don't actually have constitutional protections, it's just that it's simpler for our legal system to treat everyone uniformly (also I'm not sure it's ever actually come up before except in the highly specialized circumstances of Guantanamo Bay). Additionally tourists have their government backing them so it wouldn't be worth the international incident that something like denying them due process would cause. In general though with a tourist causing problems it's often easier for the government to just cancel their visa and deport them back to their home country then ban them from returning, rather than dealing with the headache of trying to prosecute a foreign national.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 6 points 1 year ago

Whether the victim was subject to our laws or not, the perpetrator is still committing a crime in this scenario. It isn't legal to murder tourists for example. Animals aren't US citizens but it's still illegal to torture or molest them.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 3 points 1 year ago

If so, any white supremacist or government agency could commit any atrocity and not get convicted, because the victim wasn’t protected by any laws.

Ding ding ding! You got it!

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago

Sure, and also no one to protect them if / when they're caught.