this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
373 points (98.4% liked)

News

36270 readers
2772 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
 

A federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S., siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general who challenged the effort as unconstitutional.

Trump’s March 25 executive order sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline.

The group of attorneys general said the directive “usurps the States’ constitutional power and seeks to amend election law by fiat.” The White House has defended the order as “standing up for free, fair and honest elections” and called proof of citizenship a “commonsense” requirement.

Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts said in Friday’s order that the states had a likelihood of success as to their legal challenges.

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 59 points 8 months ago (4 children)

When people support this or the trialess deportation of people who can't prove their citizenship on the spot, ask them to prove their citizenship to you right then and there.

Most people can't quickly produce proof of citizenship.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 33 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

And even if one of them decides it's real (after giving you a good beating):

They realized he did, in fact, have his green card, but questioned whether it was real.

"'I don't know, maybe it's fake' … The other guy says, 'No, it's real' … That's when they finally stopped"

They'll threaten to do what they can to get it revoked just so they can come back for you:

"Do you think you're a big shot just because you have a green card? I'll make sure they revoke that green card of yours," Reyes said, recalling what agents told him. "'I'm going to do everything I can to get this paper revoked,' an immigration officer told me."

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/worker-arrested-by-ice-in-lynn-released-a-day-later-says-he-was-beaten-in-custody/3733701/

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If their proof of citizenship is their ID, remind them that people make their entire living off selling fake or altered ID cards.

Sorry, your drivers license isn't good enough, you're going to the concentration camps.

[–] grysbok@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

And remember even RealID licenses aren't proof of citizenship.

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Which is insane considering their requirements

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

In Nazi germany “let me see your papers” was very much a thing

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Exactly. Sure I have a passport. But I'm not carrying that thing around with me.

But I'm white. So currently, it's probably OK for me, but time and this admin will be coming for us all.

[–] mystik@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Judge is not suppose to "side with democrats", or any group or ideology. They're supposed to only side with the constitution and the written and agreed upon laws.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 13 points 8 months ago

Which is exactly what this judge did. It just happened to mean they chose the side the Democrat AGs over that of the fascist taco

[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

The author of the article wrote it that way. That's how headlines work.

[–] twice_hatch@midwest.social 4 points 8 months ago

"siding with a group of Democratic state attorneys general"

Maybe I should be keeping a list of "actually many Democrats are doing stuff"