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

131–140 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#131

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ryandrake wrote: post #62
consensus1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how many of those countries have an illegal immigration problem? I bet that most of them would quickly remove that loophole if people actually started to exploit it.

Root cause it. The USA does not have an illegal immigration problem. It has a "huge, slow immigration bureaucracy" problem that makes the legal path so slow and difficult that people are incentivized to gamble on illegal paths.

There exist a large number of legal pathways to permanent residency in the US, some of which do take unreasonably long; employment-based green card applications for Indian nationals famously have a decade-long waiting period. They should be reformed and improved.

But a big part of the problem is that many people do not have a legal pathway available to them, and either don't believe that or don't wish to accept it. So they spend years carefully pursuing every bit of due process they're entitled to, and those stories become part of the "slow immigration bureaucracy", regardless of whether the result was ever really in question. This is where immigration reform proposals have generally gotten bogged down; some people strongly feel we should resolve this by creating a general legal pathway, others feel we should resolve it by expediting removals, and both groups are very hesitant to agree to a proposal that doesn't resolve it at all.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#132

Post by arpinum »

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.

The debate is whether the USA is a Jus Soli (no s) country.

Roberts claims Jus Soli applies to the USA by looking at historical concept of the words in the constitution and the king's obligations to those on his soil. He cites historical statements by founders.

Thomas and Gorsuch rejects Jus Soli applies since it is a concept from feudal lords and serfdom which the USA did not inherit. The cite historical statements by founders.

Kavanaugh thinks congress gets to decide the meaning (within reason), so he rejects Jus Soli as well.

Jackson worries about backsliding and using this to oppress people, unsure about her legal reasoning, but seems to guess at how authors of the amendment understood the words. I would still classify her as saying USA did not inherit Jus Soli, but later codified it via amendment.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#133

Post by rayiner »

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.

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#135

Post by goatlover »

sheept wrote: post #100
crote wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it leads to allowing for the possibility of interpreting "..the right to bear arms.." as "you are allowed to own the limbs of an Ursus arctos ". There's plenty in the US constitution which is vaguely worded, but you have to twist its words an awful lot to deny birthright citizenship.

Yes, and they can do that if they wanted to. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution.

And if they do enough of that, the other two branches might eventually be motivated to take action to counter it, like packing the courts or impeachments. Or telling SCOTUS to enforce it, as one president did.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#136

Post by 999900000999 »

arjie wrote: post #37
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.

I can believe that there is a lot of variance in maternal care and obstetrics in the US, but my wife and I had a pretty good experience. Documented here in what detail I could muster in those days: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Pregnancy

Congrats!

But statistically America lags behind most other nations of similar development levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_maternal_...

Not to mention the lack of maternity leave or real worker protections. A family member was fired for taking off time during a pregnancy. Everyone's fine now, but she definitely had a rough patch.

A big part of this comes down to the lack of any real safety net here.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#137

Post by nozzlegear »

mothballed wrote: post #98
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…

This is why American Samoans aren't citizens. They aren't subject to the full jurisdiction of the USA even though they are born in the United States. Yet you rarely find anyone giving a shit about the American Samoans, you never hear about it. ----- re: below due to throttling--------- >American Samoans aren't citizens because American Samoa is a territory, not a state. Puerto Rico has a special status that was exten…

American Samoans aren't citizens because American Samoa is a territory, not a state. Puerto Rico has a special status that was extended to it to grant its residents citizenship – this isn't a status that's automatically granted to all territories, it requires Federal approval which AS has never formally pushed for.

> Yet you rarely find anyone giving a shit about the American Samoans, you never hear about it.

This seems entirely subjective.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#138

Post by bediger4000 »

This "broad conception" is pretty well documented as what Congress wanted at the time of passage of 14th Amendment. It's been considered "settled law" for ages. The only real reason it's come to SCOTUS is that a particular political faction wants it to, and the media gives that particular faction more credence, and more coverage. So there's two things here:

1. An artificially whipped-up "question".

2. Conservative bias in the media.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#139

Post by rayiner »

arpinum wrote: post #132
fmobus wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The debate is whether the USA is a Jus Soli (no s) country. Roberts claims Jus Soli applies to the USA by looking at historical concept of the words in the constitution and the king's obligations to those on his soil. He cites historical statements by founders. Thomas and Gorsuch rejects Jus Soli applies since it is a concept from feudal lords and serfdom which the USA did not inherit. The cite historical statements…

This is a great summary! This is a case where all the opinions are quite good. I quite like Jackson’s opinion here. The framers of the 14th amendment were radical egalitarians and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#140

Post by nozzlegear »

999900000999 wrote: post #136
arjie wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can believe that there is a lot of variance in maternal care and obstetrics in the US, but my wife and I had a pretty good experience. Documented here in what detail I could muster in those days: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Pregnancy

Congrats! But statistically America lags behind most other nations of similar development levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_maternal_... Not to mention the lack of maternity leave or real worker protections. A family member was fired for taking off time during a pregnancy. Everyone's fine now, but she definitely had a rough patch. A big part of this comes down to the lack of any real safety n…

Wow, looking at the data on that page, it seems that people should go to Belarus if they want to have a baby.
Post reply on HN