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

211–220 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#211

Post by IAmBroom »

wang_li wrote: post #187
fmobus wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not subject to jurisdiction, where the hell did you get that idea? If a diplomat does something that would be a crime in the US, they are _asked_ to leave via diplomatic channels. They usually leave on their own. If they were under US jurisdiction, they could be TRIED in the US, but that basically never happens. The only few exceptions you will find to this were either cases where a) the person was not reall…

If a diplomat is going on a shooting spree they can be shot and killed with no ensuing issues as a result of US law enforcement enforcing laws in the moment. If they are robbing a seven-eleven they can be arrested and held until arraignment. They can be ordered to remain in their home, aka house arrest. They can be ordered to leave and they have no option to remain in the country. The US constitution does not grant d…

That flies in the face of what I understand is true about diplomatic immunity. Citation required.

As a less extreme example, diplomats can and DO park their vehicles illegally: in No Parking zones, Handicap Only zones, and blocking fire hydrants. Diplomat plates render the police unable to ticket them. It's civil not criminal courts, but for the exact reason that they are immune to our laws.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#212

Post by rayiner »

cogman10 wrote: post #206
rayiner wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s how the Supreme Court always interprets “and” in a list of conditions.

No it's not. And, as a prime example, this case which the supreme court does not and did not take that view. It's not even something the dissent argued. This is your own personal interpretation.

No, it’s the opposite. In this case, everyone agreed that the “and” means both conditions must hold. Everyone agrees that someone must be both (1) born in the US and (2) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Under your reading, the whole discussion about children of diplomats makes no sense. Under your reading, children of diplomats would automatically be U.S. citizens if born on U.S. soil. But everyone agrees that they’re not.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#213

Post by sleepyguy »

bigmadshoe wrote: post #186
sleepyguy wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you have much evidence that this is a real problem on the scale of the US population? I would imagine a tiny percentage of citizens were anchor children (i.e. people whose parents came to the US purely to give birth to them, then left again)

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#214

Post by toast0 »

rayiner wrote: post #195
toast0 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Couldn't it go either way? The 1866 civil rights act says: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed." The 14th amendment says: "All…

> Members of tribes on tribal land have been subject to federal law since 1817, though crimes committed by tribe members against other tribe members on tribal land were within the jurisdiction of the tribes. So you had and have a system of concurrent federal and tribal jurisdiction.

From today's decision:

> 2) In Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory” of the “fundamental rule of citizenship by birth” that prevailed at common law, 169 U. S., at 688, excluding only those recognized as exempt “from the jurisdiction of this country”—the“children of ambassadors” and those born in the nations of Indian tribes, id., at 675, 681–683, 693.

That's a 1898 decision where the status of native tribes was not at issue, but was used as an example. But it's roughly contemporaneous with the 14th amendment and shows why an Indian Citizenship Act would be needed.

Edited to add: There's also Elk v Wilkins (1884) which specifically held that Indians born on reservations did not get automatic citizenship.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#215

Post by wang_li »

IAmBroom wrote: post #211
wang_li wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a diplomat is going on a shooting spree they can be shot and killed with no ensuing issues as a result of US law enforcement enforcing laws in the moment. If they are robbing a seven-eleven they can be arrested and held until arraignment. They can be ordered to remain in their home, aka house arrest. They can be ordered to leave and they have no option to remain in the country. The US constitution does not grant d…

That flies in the face of what I understand is true about diplomatic immunity. Citation required. As a less extreme example, diplomats can and DO park their vehicles illegally: in No Parking zones, Handicap Only zones, and blocking fire hydrants. Diplomat plates render the police unable to ticket them. It's civil not criminal courts, but for the exact reason that they are immune to our laws.

A diplomatic vehicle that is a safety hazard can be towed. A city/state cannot enforce any fines, but they can definitely clear any safety or traffic related issues.

I would start with Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and go from there.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#216

Post by rayiner »

IAmBroom wrote: post #211
wang_li wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a diplomat is going on a shooting spree they can be shot and killed with no ensuing issues as a result of US law enforcement enforcing laws in the moment. If they are robbing a seven-eleven they can be arrested and held until arraignment. They can be ordered to remain in their home, aka house arrest. They can be ordered to leave and they have no option to remain in the country. The US constitution does not grant d…

That flies in the face of what I understand is true about diplomatic immunity. Citation required. As a less extreme example, diplomats can and DO park their vehicles illegally: in No Parking zones, Handicap Only zones, and blocking fire hydrants. Diplomat plates render the police unable to ticket them. It's civil not criminal courts, but for the exact reason that they are immune to our laws.

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#217

Post by IAmBroom »

rayiner wrote: post #202
fmobus wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A child of recognized foreign diplomat, if born in US soil, however, is not a US citizen at birth. And if they try to claim that later in life, it will be denied. This has always been like that. All jus soli countries do it.

Correct. Children of diplomats born on U.S. soil aren’t covered by the 14th amendment, even though they are subject to U.S. law and can be sued in U.S. courts over many things notwithstanding diplomatic immunity.

Family of diplomats are accorded the same immunity as the diplomats themselves.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#218

Post by rayiner »

toast0 wrote: post #214
rayiner wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Couldn't it go either way? The 1866 civil rights act says: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed." The 14th amendment says: "All…

> Members of tribes on tribal land have been subject to federal law since 1817, though crimes committed by tribe members against other tribe members on tribal land were within the jurisdiction of the tribes. So you had and have a system of concurrent federal and tribal jurisdiction. From today's decision: > 2) In Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was “declaratory” of the “fundamental rule of…

Yes, but my point is that Wong Kim Ark is internally inconsistent. It doesn’t explain how the exclusion of Indians follows from its idea of what “subject to the jurisdiction” means.

Let me put it this way. What is a definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” that excludes Indians, other than saying “well, Indians aren’t included?” It can’t be “people who aren’t subject to US laws,” because Indians have been subject to U.S. laws since 1817, even on tribal lands.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#219

Post by matwood »

consensus1 wrote: post #178
Windchaser wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I…

> national suicide

Why do you think that? The same thing was said about the Chinese, Italians, Polish, etc... when they all came here. Instead they helped make the country what it is today.

I also don't see anyone arguing for open borders, but straight forward paths for people to legally immigrate.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#220

Post by stackbutterflow »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #31
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…

Why should I give a shit what 95% of other countries do? 99% of other countries are worse in every way that matters

There's about 193 countries in the world, your number would mean there's less than two countries that are better in every way that matters.

I can name ten countries off the top of my head that are better in every way that matters to me.

The USA ranks near the bottom of developed countries in every metric but the metrics related to money.

Post reply on HN