+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Culture (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-49.html)
+--- Forum: Law & Ethics (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-105.html)
+--- Thread: President's Day 1 Executive Orders (/thread-17228.html)
President's Day 1 Executive Orders - Yazata - Jan 21, 2025
President Donald Trump signed 118 executive orders on his first day
They are as follows:
Rescinding 78 executive orders by President Joe Biden. Revocations include:
Biden’s order to make “equity,” rather than “equality,” the focus of federal policy;
Biden’s order to include illegal aliens in the Census;
Biden’s order to impose coronavirus mandates and restrictions;
Biden’s order to allow transgender individuals to serve in the military;
Biden’s order to ban private prisons;
Biden’s order to prioritize climate change; to ease immigration enforcement;
Biden’s order to revoke sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC);
Biden’s order to establish a court-packing commission to make the Supreme Court permanently liberal;
Biden’s order to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in federal hiring;
Biden’s order to restrict offshore oil and gas development;
Biden’s order to impose sanctions on Israelis linked to the political right;
Biden’s order to rescind Cuba’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism; and
Biden’s order to revoke many of Trump’s executive orders from his first term.
Restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship
Ending the weaponization of the federal government against political opposition
Compelling all federal employees to show up at work physically
Freezing all new federal regulations, pending review
Freezing the hiring of new federal employees
Relieving inflation by directing federal agencies to find ways to lower prices
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords
Pardoning (roughly 1500) and commuting the sentences (14) of January 6 defendants
Suspending the ban on TikTok, pending further review
Withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO)
Countering the “Deep State” by extending presidential control over federal policy officials
Revoking the security clearances of the 51 officials who signed the Hunter Biden “Russian disinformation” letter
Declaring a national emergency on the southern border
Clearing the backlog of security clearances for the incoming administration
Establishing an “America First” trade policy, including a review of trade with China, and enabling tariffs
Assigning the U.S. military to help protect the border
Unleashing U.S. fossil fuel exploration and development, and ending the electric vehicle (EV) mandate
Suspending refugee admission programs, with exceptions
Ending birthright citizenship
Building the wall and securing the border
Allocating more water to California farmers and communities, rather than to the delta smelt fish
Restoring the death penalty on the federal level and encouraging its use on the state level for capital crimes
Promoting “beautiful” federal architecture in civic buildings
Making it easier for the president to fire senior executives in the “Deep State”
Declaring a national energy emergency
Withdrawing offshore wind leases, temporarily
Pausing and reevaluating U.S. foreign aid programs
Reorganizing the National Security Council (NSC)
Rescinding the U.S. agreement to the OECD “global tax”
Enforcing existing immigration law to the fullest and repealing every directive otherwise
Reopening Alaskan energy resources, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
Barring terrorist supporters (like pro-Hamas activists) from the U.S.
Placing “America First” as the core of U.S. foreign policy
Establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)
Recognizing two genders, male and female
Ending government DEI programs
Prioritizing skill, not DEI, in federal hiring
Designating Mexican cartels as foreign terror organizations
Restoring traditional place names, such as Mt. McKinley
Allowing states to help guard the U.S. border against invasion
All in all, I agree with almost all of them and think that they are necessary and long overdue. But I have reservations about a few, and just realistically, some will encounter severe court challenges and might well be overturned.
Another thing. I don't think that changing federal policy on some of these things will compel the states to follow suit. Nor should it (I'm a big supporter of States' Rights). So individual states can keep their own DEI and transgender policies, even if the federal government abandons those things on the national level (as it should).
When it comes to the divisive social issues, I'd like to see more diversity among the states, as each adopts policies in keeping with what the voters of particular states want. (We are all supposed to "celebrate diversity", right?) By preventing 'one-size-fits-all' national mandates coming down from on high in Washington, the 'tyranny of the majority' is avoided.
RE: President's Day 1 Executive Orders - C C - Jan 21, 2025
(Jan 21, 2025 08:44 PM)Yazata Wrote: President Donald Trump signed 118 executive orders on his first day
They are as follows:
[...] Ending birthright citizenship [...]
22 states sue to stop Trump’s order blocking birthright citizenship
https://apnews.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-executive-order-immigrants-fc7dd75ba1fb0a10f56b2a85b92dbe53
EXCERPTS: Attorneys general from 22 states sued Tuesday to block President Donald Trump’s move to end a century-old immigration practice known as birthright citizenship guaranteeing that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.
Trump’s roughly 700-word executive order, issued late Monday, amounts to a fulfillment of something he’s talked about during the presidential campaign. But whether it succeeds is far from certain amid what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle over the president’s immigration policies and a constitutional right to citizenship.
[...] At issue in these cases is the right to citizenship granted to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ immigration status. People in the United States on a tourist or other visa or in the country illegally can become the parents of a citizen if their child is born here.
[...] The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Most other countries confer citizenship based on whether at least one parent — jus sanguinis, or “right of blood” — is a citizen, or have a modified form of birthright citizenship that may restrict automatic citizenship to children of parents who are on their territory legally.
Trump’s order questions that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship automatically to anyone born in the United States. Ratified in 1868 in in the aftermath of the Civil War, the 14th Amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It excludes the following people from automatic citizenship: those whose mothers were not legally in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, and people whose mothers were in the country legally but on a temporary basis and whose fathers were not citizens or legal permanent residents.
It goes on to bar federal agencies from recognizing the citizenship of people in those categories. It takes effect 30 days from Tuesday, on Feb. 19.
It’s not clear whether the order would retroactively affect birthright citizens. It says that federal agencies “shall” not issue citizenship documents to the people it excludes or accept other documents from states or local governments.
What is the history of the issue? The 14th Amendment did not always guarantee birthright citizenship to all U.S.-born people. Congress did not authorize citizenship for all Native Americans born in the United States until 1924.
In 1898 an important birthright citizenship case unfolded in the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he had faced denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that while the case clearly applied to children born to parents who are both legal immigrants, it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status... (MORE - missing details)
RE: President's Day 1 Executive Orders - Magical Realist - Jan 22, 2025
Quote:Ending birthright citizenship
Great! Most all Americans including myself have US citizenship by birth. Does that mean we will all be deported now? Or is it just the brown people?
Quote:Recognizing two genders, male and female
Does that mean transgender or non-binary identifying genders will be thrown into jail for violating the law now? Like they really needed one more reason to feel like despised outcasts..
RE: President's Day 1 Executive Orders - Syne - Jan 22, 2025
(Jan 22, 2025 02:54 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:You are a fucking moron.Quote:Ending birthright citizenship
Great! Most all Americans including myself have US citizenship by birth. Does that mean we will all be deported now? Or is it just the brown people?
You are a citizen because at least one of your parents were citizens.
If you are here illegally, and give birth in the US, that child should not suddenly be a US citizen. If your flight from France to Canada has a layover in NYC, where you give birth, it makes no sense that child gets citizenship.
If you have half a brain anyway.
Quote:Quote:Recognizing two genders, male and female
Does that mean transgender or non-binary identifying genders will be thrown into jail for violating the law now? Like they really needed one more reason to feel like despised outcasts..
No, you moron. It just means we do not legally recognize their mental illness as a legit definition of gender, nor allow men to harm women in women's sports, private spaces, etc..
RE: President's Day 1 Executive Orders - Yazata - Jan 22, 2025
The Department of Homeland Security has just fired all of its advisory committees.
Under Biden, the DHS had somehow turned itself into an illegal alien concierge service, spending literally billions to provide those here illegally with taxpayer funded services, so a deep and total DHS makeover is long past due. Hopefully we are seeing the first moves in that direction. Now maybe DHS will redirect its attention and efforts back to national security and necessary functions like FEMA (which is part of DHS) which has become known for its ineptitude and bureaucratic inefficiency in recent years when actual Americans from Maui to North Carolina needed its help.
![[Image: Gh2ap3DWUAAwc8T?format=jpg&name=large]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gh2ap3DWUAAwc8T?format=jpg&name=large)
RE: President's Day 1 Executive Orders - Magical Realist - Jan 22, 2025
Quote:You are a citizen because at least one of your parents were citizens.
Nope...not according to the 14th Amendment. You remember the Constitution don't you? No? Here's a little lesson in the history and legitimacy of US citizenship by birthright that's guaranteed by it:
"President Trump said this week that he is preparing an executive order to try to take away the citizenship guarantee in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says that people born in the United States are United States citizens. On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham announced that he would introduce legislation with the same aim.
But the president cannot repeal part of the Constitution by executive order. And Congress cannot repeal it by simply passing a new bill. Amending the Constitution would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, and also ratification by three-quarters of the states.The effort to erase the citizenship guarantee will never clear those hurdles — for very good reasons.
Birthright citizenship is one of the bedrocks of this country. More than 150 years ago, the 14th Amendment guaranteed to all those born within the United States citizenship, without regard to parentage, skin color, or ethnicity. And the Supreme Court ruled, more than 100 years ago, that the citizenship guarantee applies fully to U.S.-born children whose parents have no right to citizenship.
Before the amendment was enacted, American citizenship was controlled by the abhorrent 1857 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sandford. In that case, the justices found that Black people born in the United States were not citizens, but rather a “subordinate and inferior class of beings” with “no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.” Neither slaves, nor freed slaves, nor their descendants could ever become citizens, the justices ruled.
After the Civil War, Congress overruled Dred Scott by passing the 14th Amendment. The definition of citizenship is part of its very first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” In one sweep, the clause guaranteed citizenship to previously enslaved people and their children — and ensured that the law would never again perpetuate a multigenerational, permanent underclass of individuals barred from American citizenship.
In 1898, the Supreme Court confirmed that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, no matter what their parents’ status. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the justices found that a baby born in San Francisco to parents who were citizens of China — and subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited them from becoming U.S. citizens themselves — was automatically a citizen at birth. The court specifically rejected the argument that a child in those circumstances was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and thus excluded from the Constitution’s citizenship guarantee.
Only a few categories of people are excluded: children of foreign diplomats, children of enemy soldiers present in the U.S. during an occupation, and children of Native American tribes, who have American citizenship under a separate provision of law.
At least since 1898, there has been no serious question about whether children born in the United States can be denied American citizenship because of the status of their parents. James C. Ho, who was recently appointed by President Trump to the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit, has written that citizenship “is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers.” Similarly, Walter Dellinger, who was assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration, told Congress in 1995 that legislation to nullify birthright citizenship was “unquestionably unconstitutional.”
Of course, Dellinger acknowledged, "Congress is free to propose, and the states to ratify, any amendment to the Constitution. Such naked power undeniably exists.” Yet the Constitution stands for certain enduring principles, as he said in testimony before the House. “For us, for our nation, the simple, objective, bright-line fact of birth on American soil is fundamental.”
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/no-mr-president-you-cant-change-constitution-executive-order
RE: President's Day 1 Executive Orders - Syne - Jan 22, 2025
(Jan 22, 2025 03:43 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:Quote:You are a citizen because at least one of your parents were citizens.
Nope...not according to the 14th Amendment. You remember the Constitution don't you? No? Here's a little lesson in the history and legitimacy of US citizenship by birthright that's guaranteed by it:
14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "owing no allegiance to any alien power," as it was originally intended to grant free blacks citizenship. It was never intended to grant citizenship to people, or their children, who are already citizens of a foreign nation.
Trump is not repealing anything. He's simply overriding a horrible ruling way back in 1898. And it will be challenged in court and end up in the Supreme Court where it can be corrected.
RE: President's Day 1 Executive Orders - Magical Realist - Jan 22, 2025
Quote:It was never intended to grant citizenship to people, or their children, who are already citizens of a foreign nation.
Nope..it's quite clear that birth in the US is the sole determiner of citizenship here, regardless of their parent's citizenship status. Has been and always will. Just as the children of those on the Mayflower became citizens despite their parents being citizens of a foreign country. Trump will never be able to abolish this anyway. The courts would never allow it. So it's just racist fluff to please his xenophobic voter base, like changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico. lol
"If your parents are citizens of a foreign country, then you are not automatically a citizen of the United States unless you were born on U.S. soil, in which case you would be considered a "birthright citizen" according to the 14th Amendment.."---- https://www.google.com/search?q=parents+citizens+of+a+foreign+country&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS699US699&oq=parents+citizens+of+a+foreign&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBECEYoAEyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRifBTIHCAYQIRiPAtIBCjIxNDI5ajBqMTWoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
RE: President's Day 1 Executive Orders - Syne - Jan 22, 2025
That's just how the 14th has been perverted. History shows it was never meant to be used like that.
There's nothing racist about not allowing tourists or diplomats to have US citizen children. The vast majority of countries in the world agree.
RE: President's Day 1 Executive Orders - Zinjanthropos - Jan 22, 2025
Quote: Assigning the U.S. military to help protect the border
Have noticed a stepped up patrol of the Niagara River lately. US planes flying up and down it every day like they’re expecting an invasion over there. Seeing Canadian authorities pulling over truck after truck coming into Canada from US. Some trucks at border were lined up on our side of the Peace Bridge like they’re were afraid to get on Canadian Highway(QEW). Got a feeling Canada clamping down on unsafe American trucks, incomplete paperwork or suspicious/restricted cargo coming from US. Yanks probably doing same thing on their side. Silly game between allies being played.