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

121–130 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#121

Post by Windchaser »

consensus1 wrote: post #35
root_axis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it insane?

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?

> And you think that is not insane?

I think there would be a real problem with creating a class of people who live here their entire lives and aren't citizens. And then their children also live here and aren't citizens, and their grandchildren, etc.

It's not that birthright citizenship is ideal, but it prevents some other, bigger problems.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#123

Post by Windchaser »

rayiner wrote: post #107
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.

[flagged]

I mean, aren't diplomats immune to US laws? Literal "diplomatic immunity".

It makes sense to me to say that they do not fall under US laws and US jurisdiction, and their children likewise.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#124

Post by eesmith »

greggoB wrote: post #55
jjallen wrote: post #7

You can be pro/fine with legal immigration (and moderate/non-partisan) and still not think birthright citizenship is a good idea (like I do). Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship. It creates perverse incentives. Reminds me of legal abortion: practically everywhere in the world has it. If you are not in that vast majority you should be taking a very close look at yourself/things. So y…

As a non-US citizen, birthright citizenship has always struck me as strangely unique to America - in my mind it comes from a time when it was actively trying to populate the continent (something not a lot of countries have wanted to do, I guess). Roll forward a few hundred years and the context has changed, so it seems reasonable that the law should too? But I guess it shouldn't be surprising that this is no bueno fo…

Most countries in North and South America have unconditional birthright citizenship for persons born in the country.

I take it you are not British? The British Empire had birthright citizenship, and up until 1948 (except for Ireland) citizens of all Commonwealth countries were simply British subjects.

Afterward it was possible to be, for example, a Canadian citizen, but it was still the case that "Prior to the [the British Nationality Act 1981] coming into force, any person born in the United Kingdom or a colony (with limited exceptions such as children of diplomats and enemy aliens) was entitled to [Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies] status" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1981

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#126

Post by rayiner »

Windchaser wrote: post #91
arpinum wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ... It's the second part that is in dispute and is not clear from the constitution's text what exactly it means and who it excludes. And yes, it has always excluded some people born within the borders, it is not a meaningless statement.

Well, no, but almost everyone inside US borders is subject to US laws. The exceptions are rare: people in foreign embassies (which is "foreign soil"), invading armies, and indigenous tribes on tribal land.

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#127

Post by Windchaser »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #119
Windchaser wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> which will put a massive strain on our resources

True, but again, scientists are saying that we're already putting massive strain on our ecological resources, and the strain is only increasing. Not just climate change, but ocean acidification, modification of biogeochemical balances, habitat destruction, etc.

We are at genuine risk of accidentally wrecking the ecosystems we depend on.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#129

Post by rayiner »

Windchaser wrote: post #123
rayiner wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I mean, aren't diplomats immune to US laws? Literal "diplomatic immunity". It makes sense to me to say that they do not fall under US laws and US jurisdiction, and their children likewise.

Diplomats have some immunities but are not categorically outside the jurisdiction of US laws. For example, they can be sued for “commercial activity” outside the scope of their duties. If a diplomat sells you fake Hermes bags passing them off as real, you can sue them under civil law.
Post reply on HN