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

151–160 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#151

Post by thehoff »

fmobus wrote: post #120
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!

Genuine question.

Isn't this statement aimed at citizenship tourism or whatever its called?

I used to live in a state where some new friends had told us about places that facilitated pregnant women's trips to the US solely for the purpose of staying and giving birth in the US so the child could become citizens. They then head home. I have no idea how prevalent this is.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#152

Post by archagon »

mothballed wrote: post #39
jfengel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really a question of what's a good idea. It is in the text of the Constitution, about as plain as it can possibly be. If you want to change it, you have to change the Constitition. Ironically, the same Court members who most often claim the plain text of the Constitution to support their ideas are the ones who put the most effort into finding a tortured reading of the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS has not had anything remotely close to a plain text reading since the 1930s and probably longer. "Shall not be infringed" was changed to "if an infantry rifle was made after 1986 then magically it can be infringed" and (until about a week ago when it was overturned) "if you smoke a left-handed cigarette actually the second amendment doesn't exist." The 1st amendment protects freedom of speech but yet it's lega…

An aside, but it’s a bit funny to focus on the plain-text reading of “shall not be infringed” and not “a well-regulated militia.”

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#153

Post by rayiner »

cogman10 wrote: post #146
rayiner wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That exception comes from the fact that, I'm guessing, no diplomat or their children have sued over it. If they have, I'd love to see exactly where a prior SC decided that it's constitutional. If you are an originalist, textualist, or even just standard jurisprudence believer then it's crystal clear what the 14th meant. The only reason for any question about it is because a large portion of people hate the fact that…

So what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean, from a textualist standpoint? The word “jurisdiction” in the law can have different meanings in different contexts. What does it mean here?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#155

Post by HDThoreaun »

ventana wrote: post #150
HDThoreaun wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it really isn’t. Immigrants are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As Wong Kim stated the only way not to be is if the government has given you permission to be here without being under jurisdiction like a diplomat or if you’re part of an invading force. Every other person in the us is expected to follow us laws. Just because they don’t doesn’t mean the us doesn’t have jurisdiction.

Were you so sure yesterday that the Court would decide the way it did? I'm sure that with a different set of justices, the result could've been different. A "clear" law would likely not result in a 6:3 vote. There are enough cases in the Supreme Court that get 9:0, those can probably be called "clear".

I was sure that Thomas would come up with some bullshit that is completely divorced from the text and history of the constitution. The other 3 doing the same is a disappointment but not a huge surprise.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#156

Post by sleepyguy »

iAMkenough wrote: post #134
sleepyguy wrote: post #74

[flagged]

While maybe a small scale issue, the solution isn’t an authoritative order that tries to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and bypass democracy.

Perhaps, but this is definitely an issue/problem and the US should model it's policy after the EU on this specific issue.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#157

Post by toast0 »

rayiner wrote: post #90

[flagged]

Your deleted post elsewhere mentioned the text of the 1866 civil rights act stating not subject to a foreign power, but the amendment uses this text instead. IMHO, that shows awareness of the issue and a different choice.

Also, IMHO, The Indian Citizenship act addresses the complex soverignity of native tribes. Members of recognized tribes, on reservations have broad exclusion from laws of the State and in many cases are also excluded from jurisdiction of Federal law. This complexity has changed over time, but in 1924 it certainly wasn't clear that Indians were subject to the jursisdiction of the United States ... and at the time of the 14th amendment it's not really clear if United States is meant as a singular noun or a collective noun... given that people born in the territories are not automatic citizens, I think the interpretation is that you have to be subject to the jursidiction of any one of the States, which an Indian born on a reservation certainly wasn't.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#158

Post by cogman10 »

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…

I'm sorry, but it's simply insane to appeal to the founders over Jus Soli. The founders did not write the 14th amendment. Their opinions on the matter are irrelevant.

The 14th amendment grants Jus Soli. End of story. It doesn't matter if every single founder and their forefathers were opposed to that notion. The people who drafted the 14th and ratified it were in favor of Jus Soli. They were VERY explicit about that fact. There were active debates when the 14th was drafted if it should be drafted and if it should be as broad as it is.

Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh are all hacks for going further back into history than the drafting of the 14th.

It would be like talking about what the founders thought about alcohol when discussing the 18th amendment. Nobody cares because that amendment was written long after the founders died.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#159

Post by HDThoreaun »

rayiner wrote: post #145
HDThoreaun wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read Jackson’s opinion. The amendment was debated at the time and the history records show that at minimum it was intended to include all people living here who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders.

> who didn’t have permission to not follow laws like diplomats or invaders. That doesn’t quite work, because diplomats and invaders do have to follow US laws and can be tried in U.S. courts. In Ex Parte Quirin , for example, nobody doubted that German saboteurs on U.S. soil could be prosecuted in civilian courts. And while diplomats have immunities in certain areas, they can be sued under U.S. law in U.S. courts for…

German saboteurs on us soil are certainly subject to us jurisdiction. If they had kids while here the kids would be citizens according to the 14th. Wong Kim talks of invaders who are working under a different set of laws because they’re part of a military invasion, not a clandestine operation. They can’t be tried because there is no American presence on the invaded territory. I think you’re stretching the definition of jurisdiction with the diplomat stuff. Sure they’re expected to follow laws, but with only a few exceptions if they break laws they just got sent home, not imprisoned. They’re not really subject to our jurisdiction. Being able to withdraw our invitation isn’t the same as having jurisdiction.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#160

Post by jjallen »

danorama wrote: post #29
nonethewiser wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please re read his comment. He’s saying the constitution should be amended.

I think it was edited to add that?

No, it wasn't. I had it in there from the get go. I did not edit my comment for any reason, I don't think at least. Like I said in the original comment, you can be moderate/non-partisan and think this is a bad idea. You can think Trump's an idiot and still think birthright citizenship is a bad idea. That's all.
Post reply on HN