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

251–260 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#251

Post by gred »

bediger4000 wrote: post #138

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 bi…

> Conservative bias in the media.

Depending on how you count, something like 96%, 94%, 65% or 87% of mainstream media employees lean left. Of course this matters less and less as customers tune out and their influence wanes.

https://ballotpedia.org/Fact_check/Do_97_percent_of_journali...

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#252

Post by shimman »

mr_00ff00 wrote: post #240
shimman wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our entire history of a nation is the people fighting against the ruling minority of tyrants. Look at how fast SCOTUS struck down the civil rights act of 1875 (only 8 years). Look at how quickly slavers used the federal government to uphold slavery, the fugitive slave act was one of the first things Congress signed and took zero time enforcing against the will of the people. Look at how quickly business leaders fough…

What about the constitution specifically? You are saying this like there are other of nations that didn’t need to struggle for equal rights, workers’ right etc.

You need to ask a real question because I have no idea what you are trying to say by beating around the bush, this is about the SCOTUS which is a US branch for the US government.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#253

Post by mothballed »

arjie wrote: post #244
nozzlegear wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Yes, lots of them don't want the 14th amendment. They have racist/ethnocentric land ownership laws that contradict the 14th amendment, the same one that creates birthright citizenship.

There are also allegedly some low quasi-government tribal positions in remote areas where women are effectively ineligible for office, though this one is less provable, it also would not be consistent with constitutional protections.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#254

Post by nancyminusone »

thehoff wrote: post #151
fmobus wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Solicitor General Sauer brought up the same point during oral arguments in this case, and he didn't seem to know how prevalent it was either. Seems like the kind of thing you should have figured out before making your case to the Supreme Court.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#255

Post by stephbook »

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?

I guess the obvious answer would be the same as the last decades, while anything else would be called "surprising."

Which is is fine, you can change the constitution, but thats for parliament to do.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#256

Post by SauciestGNU »

ycdeebs wrote: post #177
SauciestGNU wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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”.

Yes, justices who take bribes or whose spouses help to organize a coup and an insurrection against the United States are not legitimate (Thomas, Alito). I'm more apt to listen to Gorsuch, even though he was in the dissent here, because he seems like a legitimate thoughtful jurist.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#258

Post by FireBeyond »

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.

The Trump administration found not one judge or panel of judges who agreed with their opinion ... until SCOTUS, where it found three.

Including Clarence, whose "hilarious" dissent says that undocumented persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which might be of note to ICE.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#260

Post by arpinum »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #168
rayiner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Oh, please, this is just blatant sanewashing. Anyone who does not have an explicit exclusion is under the jurisdiction of US laws while on US soil. There's zero room for ambiguity unless you're coming in bad faith with politically motivated intent. Or are you seriously arguing there's an interpretation where illegal immigrants can commit any crime they want and can't be deported?

"subject to jurisdiction" does not mean "has to follow US law", that is territorial jurisdiction. Subject to jurisdiction means political jurisdiction and allegiance. That is why children born to members of Native American tribes (no matter the location of birth) were considered not subject to jurisdiction because the parents held allegiance to their tribe. Read United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

I don't have an opinion on the legally correct answer, reading the full decision and dissents I'd give a slight edge to the majority.

Post reply on HN