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

Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#111

Post by returningfory2 »

greggoB wrote: post #64
returningfory2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the US is one of the most (the most?) successful countries in recent human history, shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the 95% be looking at the US and seeing what to copy?

Define successful? (You'll probably want to avoid metrics like happiness indices and life expectancy though)

Fair point. Mainly I agree with the sibling comment: the revealed preference of many people around the world, including many people from the richest countries in Europe, is to move the United States and then settle permanently. I think that means a lot.

Obviously you can also say that the US is geopolitically successful because of its global military and diplomatic dominance, but I account zero value to this.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#112

Post by fmobus »

ventana wrote: post #83
999900000999 wrote: post #4

Thank God. If only because this would open up people born here to having their citizenship retroactively revoked. The constitution is pretty clear. If you don't like it amend it. If anything we need to expand it to include anyone who gives birth in this country. If you're willing to deal with our horrible maternity care system and help keep up our declining population, you deserve a blue passport.

The U.S. Constitution is very far from being clear. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to explain the meaning of what is written in the Constitution; there are 9 justices in the court and they often disagree on that. Just look at the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The "well regul…

The jurisdiction clause is there because of diplomats. It's a common thing in other Jus Solis countries, for good reason.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#113

Post by ventana »

sheept wrote: post #89
mritterhoff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect OP mean declining fertility rate. USA population is still increasing, but is slowing down, and will sharply drop if the fertility rate remains below replacement of ~2 children per woman.

I believe OP is referring to how immigration is the only known working solution to a decreasing population. The US fertility rate is already 1.6 births per woman[0], and the population is only not decreasing because it still receives far more immigration than, say, Japan or South Korea. [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr038.pdf

This is not specific to the US. The US is on 147th position [1], right near a lot of European countries, and I don't think there are easy way to rollback the demographic transition.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fer...

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#116

Post by ventana »

fmobus wrote: post #112
ventana wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. Constitution is very far from being clear. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to explain the meaning of what is written in the Constitution; there are 9 justices in the court and they often disagree on that. Just look at the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The "well regul…

The jurisdiction clause is there because of diplomats. It's a common thing in other Jus Solis countries, for good reason.

And so we have the whole bench of 9 people guessing and discussing the intention of the lawmakers. Did they indeed mean diplomats when they wrote "subject of the jurisdiction thereof"? If a Martian lands on the US soil and gives birth, will the offspring immediately be "subject of the jurisdiction thereof"? What was the common meaning of the word "jurisdiction" in 1868? This kind of stuff.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#117

Post by Windchaser »

xvxvx wrote: post #3

Trump and his cronies were never going to win that battle. Like many things he does, it serves as a dog whistle to nationalists and allows him to paint anyone who opposes him as somehow un-American and an enemy of the ‘people’.

> Trump and his cronies were never going to win that battle.

He got dang close. He's only one justice replacement away from making it doable.

Gods, we are not as far from ripping up the Constitution as we'd like to think.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#118

Post by fmobus »

root_axis wrote: post #88
consensus1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some woman who is 8 months pregnant comes to the US on a tourist visa and gives birth, then goes home with the baby. And then somehow that kid gets automatic US citizenship. And it applies even if the mother is not even legally allowed in the country. And you think that is not insane?

An 8 months pregnant woman would typically be denied entry during immigration processing. It doesn't seem like a big deal.

And that's assuming they can even board their flight. Airlines don't really like carrying extremely pregnant people because it's very risky.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#119

Post by bryanlarsen »

Windchaser wrote: post #81
ihsw wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The birth rate correlates inversely with female earnings growth and correspondingly with male earnings growth; or, more to the point, declining birth rates correlates with the advancement of feminism (including birth rates approaching and then reaching zero.) This is an observation and not a judgement. Take what you will with this information.

It makes sense to me. When women have more choices, they tend to put off having kids or they raise their standards - for their economic situation before kids, for partners, etc. I think this is good; insofar as women have children, it should be because they want to, not because they're pushed into it. I'll say - it also wouldn't kill us to have slightly fewer people on the planet. We're already taxing much of our sys…

Slightly fewer is good. A rate of around 1.8 kids per woman seems slow but it's an exponential so it's still quite significant.

Parts of the world have reached 1.0 kids per woman, which is a halving of the population per generation, which will put a massive strain on our resources

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#120

Post by fmobus »

adharmad wrote: post #69

Looking at the dissents (Justice Gorsuch) it appears that he would consider illegal immigrants’ kids are citizens, but kids of legal non-immigrants are not based on the fact that one is a temporary visitor and another is not!

So, when I enter as a tourist, I'm not in jurisdiction? Sweet! Crime time!
Post reply on HN