Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
 Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd

The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (115) |
Author: Steve203 ⎊❂🐝 HONORARY
SHREWD   😊 😞
Number: of 84362 
Subject: Birthright citizenship
Date: 12/09/25 5:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
When Lord Trump decreed an end to birthright citizenship, he said his decree would only apply going forward. There is an implicit modification to that position in this report.

Trump insists birthright citizenship only 'meant for the babies of slaves'

"If the court sides with you and ends birthright citizenship, are you going to try to take away citizenship from people who already had it?" she wondered.

"I honestly haven't thought of that, but I will tell you this. The case is very interesting because that case was meant for the babies of slaves," Trump argued. "And if you look at the dates on the case, it was exactly having to do with the Civil War and all of a sudden their whole family becomes, you know, United States citizens."

"That case is all about slaves, the babies of slaves, and it was a good reason for doing it," he continued. "And that's all it was about."

msn.com - Trump insists birthright citizenship only meant for the babies of slaves

Of course, trying to take away the citizenship of USian born people, with non-citizen parents, going back to the Civil War, would seem to violate the Constitutional prohibition on "ex post facto" laws, but the regime will probably argue that the previous interpretations of the 14th were in error, so the people never had citizenship in the first place.

I doubt his nibs is telling the truth when he claims he had not thought of denying citizenship to people who were born before his decree. Since the racist immigration law was replaced in 1965, only about 14% of immigrants to the US were WASPs. Following, the same train of thought, if the US born spawn of immigrants are not citizens, then their US born spawn are not citizens either, and so on, down through the generations, to now.

My paternal grandfather was not naturalized until 1921. My father was born in the US, in 1912. Under Lord Trump's latest brain fart, dad would not be a citizen. However, as was the practice at the time, when my grandfather, as head of the family, was naturalized, the entire posse was naturalized, so my dad is listed on his dad's Certificate of Naturalization.

Steve....100% USian
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Steve203 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (115) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Ticker or Board Name Author

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community