Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#21

Post by breakyerself »

rkagerer wrote: post #17
breakyerself wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a great sign that the supreme Court didn't uphold the injunctions, but I still have some hope that even this almost worthless supreme Court would overrule such a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.

How long do you think it will take for a case with the meat of the matter to work its way to a Supreme Court decision? I heard there were multiple suits filed within days of the order being signed; which one is closest?

I wish I could tell you. There was something in the injunctions requiring some kind of relief for the specific parties in the cases so it seems like they're trying to avoid taking it head on.

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#22

Post by [deleted] »

Ancapistani wrote: post #18
josefritzishere wrote: post #14

Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.

This EO is not even attempting to overrule the Constitution. The 14th Amendment includes the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Is a child born to a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Historically, we’ve said “yes”. This EO instructs the executive branch to adopt the position of “no”. This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BA…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#23

Post by biimugan »

Ancapistani wrote: post #18
josefritzishere wrote: post #14

Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.

This EO is not even attempting to overrule the Constitution. The 14th Amendment includes the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Is a child born to a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Historically, we’ve said “yes”. This EO instructs the executive branch to adopt the position of “no”. This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BA…

This is decidedly not equivalent to those things, even roughly. Interpreting a statute (which by the way this Supreme Court has expressly limited, which is ironic given your comment) is quite different from interpreting an amendment to the Constitution. What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller. This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes.

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#25

Post by readthenotes1 »

baseballdork wrote: post #15
throwaway48476 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us can trace ancestry to service in the revolutionary war.

Does this make you more of a citizen than literally any other? It shouldn't.

It means I still have an advantage because my ancestors did not manage to completely squander the land grants given as a result of that service...

Does it mean that the lady I met last year who flew from Brazil to have her babies in the US did a right thing?

That's the question for the court

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#26

Post by readthenotes1 »

sundaeofshock wrote: post #16
josefritzishere wrote: post #14

Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.

And yet here we are. This court has decided that Trump is a king and that’s pretty much it.

No, they decided that any particular federal judge is not King and that if there's going to be broad spread relief, there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in.

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#27

Post by throwaway48476 »

baseballdork wrote: post #15
throwaway48476 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us can trace ancestry to service in the revolutionary war.

Does this make you more of a citizen than literally any other? It shouldn't.

Dual citizens have somewhere else to go when the ship sinks. They're never going to be as invested in the future of the country as those who don't.

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#28

Post by atmavatar »

Ancapistani wrote: post #18
josefritzishere wrote: post #14

Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.

This EO is not even attempting to overrule the Constitution. The 14th Amendment includes the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Is a child born to a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Historically, we’ve said “yes”. This EO instructs the executive branch to adopt the position of “no”. This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BA…

Jurisdiction has to do with the location of the birth.

If a child is born on US soil - whether that be US proper or US embassies in foreign countries (which are treated as US soil), they are automatically a citizen.

Note that it also explicitly skips foreign nationals born inside foreign embassies, which are treated as sovereign land of the hosted country - e.g., a French Embassy is French land, so a child born to a French ambassador is not a US citizen.

The argument that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction would also be followed by the absurdity that law enforcement could not arrest them for crimes and ICE could not deport them... due to lack of jurisdiction.

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#29

Post by HaZeust »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #27
baseballdork wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this make you more of a citizen than literally any other? It shouldn't.

Dual citizens have somewhere else to go when the ship sinks. They're never going to be as invested in the future of the country as those who don't.

Who said dual citizenship is on the table for most of the folks affected by these proceedings? For many people, this WILL be home. Why will some H1B visa kid give a shit about Iran, Venezuela or Mexico when one of his parents are from any of those places - and THEY aren't?

Re: Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions in birthright citizenship order

#30

Post by throwaway48476 »

HaZeust wrote: post #29
throwaway48476 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dual citizens have somewhere else to go when the ship sinks. They're never going to be as invested in the future of the country as those who don't.

Who said dual citizenship is on the table for most of the folks affected by these proceedings? For many people, this WILL be home. Why will some H1B visa kid give a shit about Iran, Venezuela or Mexico when one of his parents are from any of those places - and THEY aren't?

People don't lose their parents citizenship anymore because record keeping is much better now. My ancestors probably arrived in the 1720s but the British burned the census records during the revolution. This doesn't happen anymore.

As for dual citizens they were all waving Mexican flags during the LA protests. They wouldn't if they didn't give a shit.

Post reply on HN