Trump DHS Post Calling for ‘100 Million Deportations’ Suggests Intent to Kick Out Nonwhite Citizens

Sickening. How can we even begin to fix this post-Trump?

Ugh. Vote blue, no matter who.

Nobody’s saying it, so I’ll say it. Nonwhite *birthright citizens.* Their aim is ethnic cleansing.

[deleted]

For those who neither read the article nor did the math: 100 million deportations would require exiling at least 50 or 60 million native-born citizens, since only around 45 million US residents are not native-born citizens. The only way you get up to 100 million is by deporting and/or exiling everyone who is not white.

People wonder how this will happen. How will they get to the 100 million number? A major piece of the puzzle: It will happen if the Trump regime gets its way at SCOTUS on birthright citizenship, and then they will be coming for everyone (citizen or not, white or not). People, even pessimists, are just completely unprepared for how bad things could get if this case goes the wrong way at SCOTUS.

To be clear, the legal theory I’m going to describe below is horseshit, but, just because it’s horseshit, that doesn’t mean SCOTUS won’t greenlight it. If they do, we’re all completely fucked.

The legal theory the regime is advancing in the birth-right citizenship case is terrifying and it involves a complete, top-to-bottom re-conception of what US citizenship would mean for all of us. It is a direct parallel to Nazi Germany and it would turn citizenship into a political weapon against any and all enemies of the current fascist regime.

The regime’s theory turns on previously minor distinction in constitutional interpretation in jurisdiction: the difference between merely territorial jurisdiction and allegiance-based jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Pretty straight-forward, right? Yes, it should be. And courts has interpreted it through its plain meaning since the amendment was passed as authorizing birth-right citizenship. (Any open question about this was finally settled in the late 19th century in the Wong Kim Ark case.) There are only some narrow exceptions, like the children of foreign diplomats and children of enemy forces occupying US territory. These exceptions exist because such individuals, while physically present (that is, under merely territorial jurisdiction), owe their allegiance to foreign powers rather than to the US (allegiance-based jurisdiction). The regime wants to expand those exceptions dramatically. Their argument re-frames “jurisdiction” not as being subject to US law by virtue of territorial presence but as owing complete allegiance to the US. Children of undocumented immigrants, so the theory says, should be treated like the children of diplomats or invaders: because their parents’ “allegiances” lie elsewhere and babies have no allegiances of their own, so the theory says, they don’t have sufficient allegiance to qualify as being under the right kind of jurisdiction for the the purposes of citizenship. Notably, the regime’s challenge hinges on parental citizenship or permanent resident status as being *necessary* conditions, not sufficient ones, for citizenship, and so nothing rules out other conditions being imposed on citizenship later on.

The conceptual shift here is essential: Traditional US citizenship operates on objective criteria: if you were born here, if you completed the naturalization process, or if your parents were citizens. These are facts that can be verified and don’t change. Allegiance-based citizenship is fundamentally different. Allegiance is subjective. It requires ongoing demonstration, and, crucially, it can be judged and found “lacking” by those in power. In fact, even the relatively objective naturalization process has started to fray with the de-naturalization push on these “allegiance” terms with them hunting for instances of “dishonesty” in the application. Once groundwork is laid to make “allegiance” jurisdiction the defining feature of citizenship, the question will shift from “Were you born here?” to “Are you sufficiently loyal to the state?”

And this isn’t hypothetical. Legislation has already been introduced that makes the trajectory explicit. Moreno’s bill targeted Americans who hold dual citizenship, and its reasoning was framed explicitly in terms of allegiance: holding citizenship in another country, the idea goes, demonstrates divided loyalty and so dual citizens could lose their US citizenship even if they have never taken any action to renounce it. While the bill itself has little chance of passing, that’s not the point; rather, its function was to introduce allegiance-based language into right-wing discourse on citizenship and to normalize the idea that citizenship should be contingent on demonstrated, exclusive loyalty to the US government.

This is a major danger for everyone, not just immigrants or dual citizens. Consider how broadly this regime defines disloyalty. For example, people who film ICE conducting raids have been labeled “domestic terrorists.” Look at any number of examples in NSPM-7 to get a sense of who they consider a domestic terrorist. Then apply the allegiance framework: if filming ICE makes someone a “domestic terrorist,” would that person demonstrate on-going “allegiance” or “loyalty” to the United States to “merit” citizenship? Under the logic of the regime, the answer is obviously “no.” The same logic could extend to anyone the government deems insufficiently loyal for any number of reasons.

There is direct historical precedent for exactly this kind of transformation: the 1935 Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany. The Reich Citizenship Law created a critical distinction between two categories: “Reich citizens” (*Reichsbürger*) and mere “state subjects” (*Staatsangehörige*). Only Reich citizens possessed full political rights, and, to qualify as a *Reichsbürger*, you had to have the “right” (German) blood and demonstrate willingness to serve the German nation and Reich. Jews, by legal definition, could not meet this standard and were therefore relegated to the status of “state subjects.” These were people under merely territorial jurisdiction but who possessed no political rights and no claim to the complete protections that full citizenship provided. This extended to all manner of “undesirables” as well. We know how that ended.

If the courts accept that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means something like “owing complete allegiance to the US,” that interpretation will become a framework in which US citizenship becomes a revocable privilege, not a right, that the government grants to those it deem to demonstrate sufficient allegiance and revokes from those it considers disloyal in some way. The “customs” part of ICE will come to mean a loyalty test for retaining citizenship.

Now, if you lose citizenship but you don’t have citizenship elsewhere, you are stateless. You effectively have zero rights. And if the fascist state wants you, a stateless person, out of its territory but you have no where to go… Well, there is really only one option left and we’ve seen how it works in history.

There is a reason they expanded ICE to have a budget larger than those of literal militaries. It’s because they plan on turning it into a nationwide fascist police force with an extensive camp system for all “undesirables” and other dissidents. This is how they will do it.

Shitler’s horror regime shits on every amendment – national or international – that doesn’t fit into their picture of their world vision.

The world can’t trust the USA, anymore. Sickening.

Impractical logistics of this scale aside, how exactly is the US going to function if approximately 1/3 of the population is removed?

To get that number you would have to deport 58 million people born in the US and to get that number it’d have to include a lot of 2nd+ generation Americans.

Well, that’s the long term goal. As it all they’ve been doing, they’ve never been coy about that.

Maybe Trump will MAGA us back to the time that blacks only counted us 3/5 of a person. More likely I could see him saying that only white, male landowners count as citizens. Doesn’t anyone in the Republican Party have the balls to stand up to him?