this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2026
309 points (99.4% liked)

politics

30907 readers
1720 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 108 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Republicans who support this are just racists. No more. No less. Whether these Republicans are insane, incompetent, or evil, they are simply wrong. Stop discriminating against American babies!

[–] iltoroargento@startrek.website 62 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Republicans ~~who support this~~ are just racists.

At this point, if you're still hanging around with the fascists, you've become a fascist.

[–] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 15 points 1 month ago

This is a fair criticism. We are deep into a second Trump Presidency so there's no more excuses to being ignorant of the complicit fascism. We live in the information age of the 21st Century. It's past time to be ignorant or ill-informed of softly supporting evil.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Immigration law in the US is and has always has been racist. The first federal immigration law was called the Chinese Exclusion act for fucks sake.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not sure which way that one goes but in my mind it's a coin toss between "Chinese Exclusion" meaning to exclude Chinese from a general immigration ban (so they can provide cheap labour to railway makers) or to exclude Chinese from immigration (because racism).

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It was after the railroads had mostly been finished, so the racism took precedence. White conservatives got really scared that the Chinese would have enough population to gain significant political power. Sounds familiar?