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

171–180 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#171

Post by cogman10 »

arpinum wrote: post #165
cogman10 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The 14th amendment grants Jus Soli. End of story. But it isn't the end, it then qualifies who gets Jus Soli. And that is the debate. > The people who drafted the 14th and ratified it were in favor of Jus Soli Thomas cites Sen. Howard and Sen. Trumbull statements in support of the claim that the 14th amendment ratifiers did not intend to grant universal Jus Solis. Is he a liar? > ... and Kavanaugh are all hacks for…

> Is he a liar?

Yes, he's quote mining to try and argue that there was some sort of confusion about the implications of the amendment. This was part of the debate about the amendment and whether or not it should be reworded. In other words, Howard and Trumbull were raising the very issues with the text that Thomas wants to take issue with.

That discussion was one which shows that the implications of the text were understood and accepted as a result of debate. It cuts against Thomas's actual argument.

Thomas is a liar. Or at very least a dishonest in his characterization.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#172

Post by stvltvs »

fmobus wrote: post #164
rayiner wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

We know that because jurisdiction is such a fundamental concept that it needs no further specification. It's fundamental to any system of laws, if a jurisdiction is not defined, the system of laws is useless. Running a legal system without a jurisdiction is like running computer code without memory space. The US legal system defined everyone in its soil to be under its jurisdiction, _except diplomats_, because of dip…

Correct me if I'm wrong, but jurisdiction can be summarized as whoever is subject to the law and the rule of the courts.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#173

Post by wang_li »

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.

Diplomats are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, that's why we have immunity agreements and we can order them out of the country. We also don't recognize the children of invading armies as citizens. Native Americans don't automatically get citizenship from the constitution. They get it from an act of congress in 1924.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#174

Post by fmobus »

ventana wrote: post #116
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.

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.

Citizenship means having political rights. If it's decided at some point that a martian may have political rights...then yes, as it stands, their offspring would have citizenship upon birth/ejection/hatching/transmogrification or whatever means of reproduction they use.

This is really no different than if we decided that a dolphin or a naked mole rat are able to hold political rights. If an understanding that this is possible emerges, then as a logical consequence any dolphin or naked mole rat born in US jurisdiction would be a citizen.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#175

Post by rayiner »

fmobus wrote: post #164
rayiner wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

We know that because jurisdiction is such a fundamental concept that it needs no further specification. It's fundamental to any system of laws, if a jurisdiction is not defined, the system of laws is useless. Running a legal system without a jurisdiction is like running computer code without memory space. The US legal system defined everyone in its soil to be under its jurisdiction, _except diplomats_, because of dip…

> If an illegal immigrant kills a person while in the US, they get tried according to US law. If a diplomat kills a person in the US, they do not get tried because the US has no jurisdiction over that diplomat.

Diplomats have diplomatic immunity, which is not the same thing as jurisdiction. For example, diplomatic immunity doesn't extend to a diplomat's commercial activities: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity. So if a diplomat sells you fake Hermes bags passing them off as the real thing, you can sue them in a U.S. court. And the U.S. court will have jurisdiction.

> Discussion of law discussion that uses comparison with international standards is quite common in every legal system... So yeah, sometimes discussions of law can be complicated. This one... Ain't.

We have to look to international standards concerning latin phrases to understand what Americans meant by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," but that isn't "complicated?" If you say so.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#176

Post by ycdeebs »

ventana wrote: post #116
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.

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.

If they meant simply “diplomats”, why didn’t they just say “other than diplomats”?

Maybe that’s what they meant, and maybe it’s not.

One thing is sure: depending on which side you are on, it’s “obvious” that it means whatever supports your side.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#177

Post by ycdeebs »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #162
ventana wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

[flagged]

Aaaaand, there it is. If I disagree with a ruling, or with the politics of the president that appointed a judge that made a ruling, then the rulings are “illegitimate”.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#178

Post by consensus1 »

Windchaser wrote: post #109
consensus1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a difficult and selective immigration process that rejects the vast majority of applicants is not a problem. It is exactly how an immigration system should work. We want the best.

I'm personally happy to welcome anyone who's willing to come, work hard, pay taxes, and support democratic ideals. This is how most of our ancestors got here, and it seems fair to me that we continue to extend that offer to other would-be immigrants. Worth noting that the economic literature also shows that this is firmly in our best interests, and immigrants and their children more than pay their way in future taxes…

The system that we had up until the late 1800s had a natural rate limiter in that the technology of the time made international travel so time consuming and expensive that immigration was simply an impossible pipe dream for the vast majority. It was also limited in impact on the native population because there were no welfare programs of any kind at the time, so an immigrant was never an expense item on the budget.

It may be your personal opinion that we should have the open borders policy you describe, and you are perfectly entitled to that, but here is mine. Your idea is borderline insane. Putting bleeding hearts in charge, who will allow things like this out of some compulsion that fairness demands we have the same immigration policy now as we did in the 1800s, is national suicide. I will continue to vote for anyone besides your side, even right wingers that I find repulsive, because I fear that someone on the left who lacks fundamental self preservation instincts will put in place policies like the ones you support.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#179

Post by ventana »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #162
ventana wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

[flagged]

The problem is that the other half of the country will probably have something to say about activist leftist justices with their agenda. This is just not the constructive way of arguing.

Disclaimer: I'm a legal immigrant myself, and of course I appreciate the today's ruling in favor of jus soli.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#180

Post by wang_li »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #159
rayiner wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Illegal immigrants are also working under a different set of laws because they are citizens of another country. Ask yourself this: where would an illegal immigrant apply for a passport? Just like an invading army, citizens of other countries are obligated to follow the laws of the countries where they have citizenship in addition to any laws that may be imposed on them by being present in the US.
Post reply on HN