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

241–250 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#241

Post by nikanj »

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…

Do you have US citizenship? How did you acquire it?

If you inherited it from your parents, how did they acquire it?

Usually strong opponents to birthright citizenship are just a few generations removed from someone who got theirs via birthright.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#242

Post by ceejayoz »

atonse wrote: post #226
paxys wrote: post #24

The most obvious read of the constitution in the world still being a 6-3 verdict shows the state of the Supreme Court today.

Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court - and that's the mission of the Supreme Court, to interpret all the various situations for these cases and how they apply constitutionally.

> Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court

Every single court on the way to SCOTUS correctly said "the fuck?!"

> Federal judges in each of the district courts issued preliminary injunctions to block the order from taking effect anywhere in the country. Judge John C. Coughenour, presiding over Washington v. Trump, called the order "blatantly unconstitutional". Government appeals challenging the injunctions were rejected by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Barbara

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._CASA#Background

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#244

Post by arjie »

nozzlegear wrote: post #137
mothballed wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 se…

What a curiosity. It appears that other territories count by statute but for American Samoa the US national designation was created to give them similar rights to citizens but not voting or political office and in exchange the Samoans get some more self-determination than other territories. Cool!

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#245

Post by petilon »

rayiner wrote: post #199
paxys wrote: post #24

The most obvious read of the constitution in the world still being a 6-3 verdict shows the state of the Supreme Court today.

What does "subject to the jurisdiction" "obviously" mean, keeping in mind that everyone agrees children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities?

That's partial jurisdiction at best.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#246

Post by ceejayoz »

hacker_homie wrote: post #239
ceejayoz wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whether the child is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. at birth If I strangle said child in the maternity ward, do you think the US will go "whoops, no jurisdiction!"

that would be jurisdiction on you committing murder, which they do have.

So reversing the scenario - an illegal immigrant kills me - can't be prosecuted? Because they're not under US jurisdiction?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#247

Post by platevoltage »

ihsw wrote: post #20
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.

The birth rate correlates inversely with female earnings growth and correspondingly with male earnings growth; or, more to the point, declining birth rates correlates with the advancement of feminism (including birth rates approaching and then reaching zero.) This is an observation and not a judgement. Take what you will with this information.

It also correlates with the economy being more and more hostile towards single income households, but let's just blame women knowing their own worth.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#248

Post by outside1234 »

shimman wrote: post #221
thehoff wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Citizen tourism is not a real concern; good grief why do people care about fringe issues that impacts no one instead of concentration of corporate power, consolidation of wealth, and decreasing rights for citizens?

Because the people in power don't believe those last things are problems, so they distract us with the former things which actually aren't problems that they present as problems.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#249

Post by eqmvii »

paxys wrote: post #24

The most obvious read of the constitution in the world still being a 6-3 verdict shows the state of the Supreme Court today.

It's tricky because dissenting doesn't necessarily mean you'd reach the opposite conclusion in every respect.

In this case, I really doubt even the most conservative justices believe "birthright citizenship means whatever an Executive Order says it does." At a minimum, we know they aren't signing on to the reasoning the 5 in the majority used. And then we can learn whatever they feel like saying in the dissent, but a dissent is just an essay with no force of law.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#250

Post by outside1234 »

padjo wrote: post #114

The crazy thing here is that 4 supposedly conservative Supreme Court justices wanted to overturn over a century of precedent on how the constitution was interpreted.

They took this case so they can appear to be reasonable while doing wild stuff in other cases.
Post reply on HN