Latest news with #AmericanSoil
Condé Nast Traveler
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Condé Nast Traveler
What the Supreme Court Ruling on Birthright Citizenship Means for Travel
On June 27, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued a significant ruling that has profound implications for birthright citizenship and, by extension, travel regulations. Birthright citizenship, a principle that has been enshrined in the Constitution for more than 160 years, grants US citizenship to any child born on American soil. On the first day of his second term in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order intending to end unrestricted birthright citizenship, which would threaten automatic citizenship for children born to parents in the US temporarily (such as on a visitor visa) or without documentation. This recent Supreme Court decision has triggered a series of legal and procedural challenges that could impact citizenship and, indirectly, the ability of certain individuals to travel both domestically and internationally. Here's what to know. What does the Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship mean? The Supreme Court decision did not overturn birthright citizenship in the US nor rule on its constitutionality. Instead, the justices ruled to limit nationwide injunctions issued by lower courts, which were legal maneuvers that, until now, had prevented the executive order from progressing. 'The Court essentially held that even if an executive order were clearly unconstitutional, federal judges' decisions could only protect the specific people who sue, not everyone who might be harmed,' explains Elizabeth Ricci, a partner at Rambana & Ricci and an adjunct professor of immigration law at Florida State University. When will the executive order go into effect? While the Supreme Court's ruling did not directly address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, it did clear the path for the executive order to be applied. However, the justices set a 30-day delay, giving politicians, legal experts, and immigrant rights groups until July 27, 2025, to apply any new legal maneuvers, such as class action lawsuits. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit challenging the birthright citizenship order that is scheduled for a July 10 hearing. If the judge rules in the ACLU's favor, it would stop the executive order from going into effect. If a state hasn't previously challenged the executive order (or doesn't before July 27), and if none of the other lawsuits succeed in winning nationwide relief before July 27, then the order will go into effect in that state on that date. The White House has until then to outline how the US government will enforce the changes of its executive order in the states where it can go into effect. Which states have challenged the decision to end birthright citizenship? Already, 22 states (plus Washington, DC) have asked federal judges to block Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship, which, Michael Cataliotti, an immigration lawyer at Cataliotti Law, says is an 'indication of where the policies and practices will preserve birthright citizenship as a basis of the constitutional framework.' Those states include: Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Hawaii Illinois Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Oregon Rhode Island Vermont Washington Wisconsin The other 28 states have not challenged the order, though Ricci says that doesn't necessarily mean they support it. 'They may just be waiting to see how litigation develops, preparing their own legal challenges, or even punting due to political constraints.' Still, if they don't challenge the order (and no other ruling blocks adoption nationally), it will go into effect on or after July 27, which could lead to a patchwork approach to how birthright citizenship is applied in the US. For those states where a judge has already blocked the policy of ending birthright citizenship, the executive order can't be enforced there—for now. After July 27, plaintiffs in each case remain protected from the executive order, at least until the courts rule on the individual lawsuits. This protection isn't indefinite—it lasts as long as the preliminary injunction is in place for those named plaintiffs. So, while those plaintiffs won't be affected by the executive order on July 27, that protection is not permanent—it hinges on the outcome of the case and any future rulings. And there's an additional catch: The Supreme Court recently ruled that these court orders can only protect people actually involved in the case, unless the case has been certified as a class action. So, unless those states win broader protections for all affected residents, some families might still fall through the cracks. What are the potential implications on travel, if birthright citizenship ends? Under the executive order, children born after July 27, 2025, to undocumented or temporary-status parents could lose automatic citizenship—unless covered by an injunction or successful class action. Cataliotti added that it would even extend to the children of visa holders in the US with lawful but non-immigrant status (such as B-1/B-2 visitors, F-1 students, H-1B, L-1, TN, and O-1 visa holders). This could potentially result in US-born babies being deported, even though their parents could remain legally in the country, says Juan Rivera, an immigration attorney at Juan C Rivera PLLC. A Trump lawyer has confirmed that there will be no immediate deportations until after the order goes into effect on July 27, Reuters reports. 'Depending on where visa holders are located and where their children are born, the child may be deemed an American and issued a birth certificate…or not,' Cataliotti says. 'If there's ongoing litigation in, say, California, those children will likely be considered US citizens. If we're looking at Texas, those children are not likely going to be considered US citizens. It's an absolute mess.' 'This creates a potential cohort of stateless or noncitizen US-born children, with significant legal and social implications,' Rivera adds. A stateless child is not recognized as a national by the laws of any nation, often due to being born in a country that doesn't grant birthright citizenship, having parents who are not citizens of any nation, or because their status was stripped due to ethnic or religious reasons. This means they don't have the legal rights and protections afforded to citizens of any country and also face difficulties accessing basic rights like health care and education, as many countries require citizenship for these services. The UN says at least 4.4 million people are currently stateless around the world. If a baby is born in the US but isn't a recognized citizen, Rivera says that they might be able to stay: 'If the parents are in the US on legal visas, the child might be able to stay temporarily as a dependent (or derivative) on the parent's visa. But that child would not be a US citizen and wouldn't have the right to stay permanently.' Still, without recognized citizenship, it would also mean those children will not be eligible for a US passport, which is issued at the federal level, says Bradford Bernstein, an immigration attorney at Spar & Bernstein. 'These children not having a passport will create serious travel complications, including the inability to travel internationally, reenter the US, or prove legal status within the country.' Rivera said that the policy does not apply retroactively, so children born before July 27 keep their citizenship, but he added that 'obtaining a US passport would be wise to have additional proof of citizenship. Similarly, for babies born after that date, parents should consider applying for passports quickly. That may help resolve their child's status before it becomes a legal gray area.' Because the US Constitution protects the right to move freely between states, Rivera says there is no precedent for citizenship check points when traveling between US states if the order is applied unevenly. Still, if a child isn't recognized as a citizen in one state, they may have trouble getting a birth certificate, passport, or social services. 'These kinds of bureaucratic hurdles could feel a lot like internal 'checkpoints'—even if they're not called that,' Rivera says. What's next? Jennifer Behm, a partner at Berardi Immigration Law, says that, for now, the issue of whether or not birthright citizenship is a federal right protected by the US constitution will remain a question for the lower courts. 'The core question—whether the executive order violates the 14th Amendment—will now be tested in the appeals courts,' Behm says. 'Conflicting rulings across circuits would likely force the Supreme Court to revisit the issue and decide the constitutional merits. The first round was about procedure. The next will ask if a president can rewrite the meaning of citizenship itself.' She adds: 'I do not believe the administration will ultimately succeed in redefining the Constitution and overturning centuries of legal precedent through a single executive order, but the constitutional fight is still ahead.' How is citizenship granted around the world? Citizenship is granted around the world primarily through two methods: jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanguinis (right of blood). Jus soli grants citizenship to individuals born within a country's territory, regardless of their parents' nationality, while jus sanguinis grants citizenship based on the nationality or ethnicity of one or both parents. 'Some countries, like Germany, combine the two—requiring that at least one parent has legal ties to the country,' Rivera says. 'The US and Canada are among the few that grant citizenship automatically to almost every child born on their soil. That's why this shift is such a big deal: It breaks with a long-standing tradition, both legally and culturally.' Several countries also allow individuals to claim citizenship based on their ancestry, even if they were not born there. For example, Ireland and Italy provide citizenship to people who can trace their ancestry back to a citizen of those countries, often up to several generations. This is known as citizenship by descent and is a form of jus sanguinis with a broader historical connection. A growing number of countries offer citizenship by investment programs, allowing individuals to obtain citizenship by making significant financial contributions to the country, such as purchasing property, creating jobs, or making donations to national development projects. Countries like Panama and Malta are popular for these programs. These alternative pathways to citizenship add another layer of complexity to how nationality is granted globally, offering options for individuals with historical ties or substantial financial means to obtain citizenship beyond traditional means.
Daily Mail
19-06-2025
- Sport
- Daily Mail
Pep Guardiola 'hints that it was NOT his decision to sign £34M newcomer Rayan Cherki' - as he insists that it will be 'difficult' replace Kevin De Bruyne
Pep Guardiola appeared to offer a hint that Manchester City 's signing of Rayan Cherki wasn't his alone as he shared his thoughts on the new midfielder after his side's first Club World Cup match. The 21-year-old was one of the hottest prospects of the transfer market, with rivals Manchester United and Liverpool both thought to have circled the player on the heels of a successful season at Lyon. Cherki was named UEFA Europa League Young Player of the Season after finishing as the competition's top assist provider in the competition, and has been labelled one of finest technicians on the continent. Guardiola's side secured the midfielder for £34million as part of the club's wholesale rebuild this summer, which has included drafting in Chelsea 's third-choice goalkeeper Marcus Bettinelli, former Wolves star Rayan Ait-Nouri and AC Milan midfielder Tijjani Reijnders. But after assessing one of his first performances against Moroccan outfit Wydad AC, which saw the serial winners claim an opening 2-0 victory on American soil, Guardiola let slip a telling detail about his newest player. 'Of course Kevin (De Bruyne) is difficult to replace, we know that,' Guardiola told reporters. 'For the quality he has, there is no doubt about it, but at the same time, the club decided on Rayan because he has incredible skills close to the box and great vision, pass in many things. 'It was just a first game with tough, tough conditions,' Guardiola added. 'I'm really pleased he came here.' Cherki for his part has been outspoken about how much wanting to work with Guardiola drove his desire to sign for the club. 'When I spoke with Pep and he wanted me - he was very, very clear,' Cherki told reporters this week. 'That the system, the club, the city is very good. I want to win and I think City wants to win it all. For me that's better. 'When you see Rodri, he won the Ballon d'Or here – it's clear that with City it's possible and I am here for this.' Guardiola is also thought to have discussed Cherki's preferred position with the player after inking his deal, with the Catalan manager reassuring his new signing that he can be 'free'. 'I spoke with Pep about my position on the pitch and we spoke about what I enjoy when I'm on the pitch. It's very good for me,' Cherki continued. 'He told me he loves a No10, but now I play all the positions in the pitch - so it's not complicated because I just want to play. 'Pep told me, 'when you have the ball, you are free' which is very good for me because it's my first quality to help the team.'
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Leonard Greene: ‘No Kings' protesters rain on Trump's military parade
President Donald Trump wants a war. If he can't get a trade war with Canada or China or all of Europe, he'll settle for a war on democracy by deploying troops on American soil to punish peaceful protesters. And, as if that was not enough, Trump was determined on Saturday to waste taxpayer money on a jingoistic military parade, like the ones you might see in China, Russia or North Korea, that coincided with Flag Day and the president's 79th birthday. 'For two and a half centuries, the men and women of America's Army have dominated our enemies and protected our freedom at home,' Trump said in a video posted to Truth Social in early June. 'This parade salutes our soldiers' remarkable strength and unbeatable spirit. You won't want to miss it. Just don't miss this one. It's going to be good.' Never mind that 60% of Americans said the parade is 'not a good use' of government money according to a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. (I'd like to see the poll of Americans who disapprove of Trump's birthday.) Some estimates put the parade price tag at $45 million. A military parade? On his birthday? Why can't he just get a cake and blow out some candles like the rest of us? It turns out that Trump's parade wasn't his worst use of the military. That was reserved for the commander in chief's crackdown on demonstrators protesting his stepped-up enforcement of federal immigration laws. Last week, Trump deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles, the nation's second-largest city, to help control the demonstrations California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, convinced a federal judge to stop Trump's troop takeover. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled that Trump's L.A. troop deployment violated the Constitution's 10th Amendment protecting state sovereignty, and exceeded his statutory authority. 'We're talking about the president exercising his authority, and the president is of course limited in that authority,' Breyer said. 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.' But an appeals court blocked Breyer's ruling, allowing the troops to stay in place — for now. The troop presence sparked a series of 'No Kings' rallies in cities across America to counter the military parade and the California crackdown. Major protests were planned for Saturday in New York City, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix and Los Angeles. The deployment showdown also led to one of the state's most despicable standoffs. Among those defending Trump's use of the National Guard was Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Noem, at a news conference, was speaking about liberating Los Angeles 'from the socialists and the burdensome leadership this governor and mayor have placed on this country and this city' when she got a question from someone who was not a reporter. Moments later, the man asking the question, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., was pushed out of the room, shoved to the floor and placed in handcuffs by federal agents. 'If that's what they do to a United States senator with a question, imagine what they do to farm workers, day laborers, cooks, and the other nonviolent immigrants they are targeting in California and across the country. Or any American that dares to speak up,' Padilla, 52, later said in an X post. 'I will not stop fighting to demand accountability on behalf of the people of California.' The White House, of course, said Padilla was to blame for the dustup. Of course he was. His name is Alejandro Padilla. If his name were Sen. Whiteguy, there wouldn't have even been an issue. ___
Los Angeles Times
10-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Los Angeles Times
How important are Bob Dylan's Jewish roots? Entertaining bio doesn't really answer the question
The word 'probably' gets a major workout in 'Bob Dylan: Jewish Roots, American Soil,' Harry Freedman's new book made of equal parts passion and conjecture. The book's central premise, or one of them, sounds juicy: The man born Robert Zimmerman, and raised by a middle-class Jewish family in small-town Minnesota, worked hard to turn his back on his Jewish roots, adopting an anglicized name and spinning a string of tall tales about his background and upbringing. And yet, as Freedman implies throughout, elements of Dylan's Jewishness remained central to his art and identity, from his commitment to social justice to his imaginative formation of a new persona. It's an intriguing idea, but one that Freedman, billed by his publisher as 'Britain's leading author of popular works of Jewish culture and history,' never really pins down. He does, however, have fun trying. Even as he wanders away from his thesis for pages and pages at a time, Freedman provides a lively gloss on Dylan's rise from unknown folk beacon to counterculture superstar and, to some, plugged-in traitor to the folk cause. This period, of course, is also the subject of the recent movie 'A Complete Unknown,' which was based on Elijah Wald's superb book 'Dylan Goes Electric.' There will never be a shortage of Dylan movies — or books. So what makes this one worth reading? For one thing, it's a little strange. Freedman, whose previous books include 'Leonard Cohen: The Mystical Roots of Genius,' writes in a sort of modified hipster patter that fits in well with the Beat poets Dylan once idolized, and whom the author cites as another big influence on the young singer-songwriter. The author has a curious relationship with commas; his sentences often run on to the point where you might find yourself looking for periods without finding them. Sentence structure sometimes ends up blowin' in the wind: 'Coming on at midnight to perform just two numbers, the crowd went wild.' Yes, I suppose the crowd would go wild if it went onstage at midnight, or any other time really. Devoting generous space to the civil rights movement, the Red Scare, rock 'n' roll and other sociopolitical foment of the '50 and '60s, Freedman can adopt the tone of an earnest YA author: 'The kids were looking for fun, at this stage in their lives they weren't looking to change the world. But change the world they would. There was no colour bar to their love of music.' But he can also surprise with sudden, mischievous wit. On the protesters confronted by police at the Washington Square Park 'Beatnik riot' of 1961: 'A few sat in the fountain and sang 'We Shall Not be Moved.' They were.' And here he is on the antipathy that Mary Rotolo, mother of the young Dylan's girlfriend Suze, had for Dylan: 'She didn't have the same maternal feelings towards him as the other older women who had mothered Bob when he first arrived in New York, but that was bound to be so; he wasn't shtupping their 17-year-old daughters.' 'Jewish Roots' has what a book with a shaky premise needs to still be readable: a voice that never really gets dry. But then there's the 'probably' problem, which represents a larger issue of floating ideas that don't have the backing of fact. 'Bob Dylan was probably in the park that April day in 1961.' And this about manager Albert Grossman: 'The fact that both Dylan and Grossman were each blessed with temperamental Jewish volatility would tear their relationship apart in due course. But at this stage their cultural background probably helped to create a chemistry, a shared ambition for success.' This example underscores a separate issue that defines the book. Eager to serve his premise regarding Dylan's Jewishness, Freedman sometimes turns it into a flimsy fallback device. 'Blessed with temperamental Jewish volatility'? Sure. Maybe. Probably? It's pretty thin stuff, and it's indicative of an argument that never really coheres. In other places, however, Freedman can be quite sharp about the matter. Here he is describing Dylan's reaction to discovering that his friend and fellow musician Ramblin' Jack Elliott was also Jewish: 'Dylan had discovered he wasn't alone, and the suspicions of his friends had been confirmed; Bob Dylan was Jewish. And, of course, it didn't matter a bit. That's the funny thing about being Jewish. The antisemites hate you, the philosemites want to be like you, and nobody else gives a damn. It's a lesson that every Jew with a crisis of identity learns eventually. To stop being so self-conscious and accept the reality of who you are.' Of course, if nobody else gives a damn, one might wonder about the purpose of this book. As it is, 'Jewish Roots, American Soil' makes for fun reading even when it doesn't quite seem to know what dots it wants to connect. This would hardly be the first box that the famously elusive, self-mythologizing Dylan doesn't quite fit. Vognar is a freelance culture writer.
Washington Post
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Pentagon draws up rules on possible use of force by Marines deployed to LA protests
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil, now that the Trump administration is deploying active duty troops to the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles.
