517
Hiroshi Nagai distraught at seeing his artwork appropriated for anti-immigrant propaganda. (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/actually_infuriating@lemmy.world
60 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

source: https://xcancel.com/hiroshipj/status/2007024205272150219

DMCA or a diplomatic protest is appropriate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 10 months ago (6 children)

The order is this:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

It's been challenged by at least 22 State Attorneys General and been blocked by multiple federal judges. The SCOTUS announced on the 5th of December that they were hearing arguments for it, idk if it's been resolved yet.

Writ of Petition by Trump to allow the order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/378052/20250926163053178_TrumpvBarbaraCertPet.pdf

Scheduled hearing by SCOTUS for oral arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120525zr_hejm.pdf

A good blog about the topic is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Such bullshit. If you can be arrested by the cops, you are subject to the jurisdiction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    You don't need to be a citizen to be subject to law enforcement, the only exceptions are people with diplomatic immunity.

    I think there should be bare minimum human rights for all, not just citizens, but that's not the case currently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    That's basically the point. If you are subject to law enforcement and you have a kid here, the kid is a citizen.

    "Subject to the jurisdiction" was essentially to keep diplomats kids from becoming citizens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I thought it was more about if a foreign nation say, invaded and controlled a state, then we wouldn't be granting citizenship while it was under a foreign power.

    Either way, no reading of that would apply to what the administration wants to see. I believe the argument I saw them attempting was to imagine another word was intended, "exclusively subject to the jurisdiction", meaning an otherwise stateless child becomes a citizen, but if they have birthright citizenship claim anywhere else, that is what the administration would want to use as an excuse to deny citizenship.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent