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?

  • Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours 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.