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

261–270 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#261

Post by zamadatix »

tencentshill wrote: post #236
sleepyguy wrote: post #74

[flagged]

Then you can the work to get Congress to ratify an amendment. Donate, campaign, maybe even run for office yourself! We still do things democratically, not by executive order. Authoritarians will always offer the easy way out.

Both sides of each case should really start doing this after any ruling. As we've seen dozens and dozens of times, there is nothing that says the Supreme Court will have the same interpretation of the same less-than-crystal-clear words 10 years from now. Their decisions in the meantime are also not really democratic yet trend consistently towards their (albeit, very well argued versions of) individual political views instead. It's a problem of the current court as much as it was a problem of the court 20, 40, or 60 years ago.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#262

Post by ceejayoz »

gred wrote: post #251
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...

Now do the management/ownership side.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#263

Post by stackskipton »

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…

Sure, let's have that debate then. I think what frustrates many US citizens is immigration is clearly broken but for various political reasons, Congress won't touch it. It's clear the system is at the breaking point.

>and immigrants and their children more than pay their way in future taxes and future entrepreneurship.

As someone who is involved in local politics, and encourages more people to be, this is true in long run BUT not in short term. This causes a ton of friction since localities which don't have unlimited debt power ends up eating the cost of this immigration.

Here is CBO source on this: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61464

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#264

Post by russdill »

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…

Imagine being 18 and suddenly discovering you have to prove the citizenship status of a parent you've never met or else you'll be deported to a country you've never been to and who's language you don't speak

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#265

Post by garyfirestorm »

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.

jurisdiction is not dependent just on the person. it is a geographical encapsulation. all people within this boundary are subject to the jurisdiction.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#267

Post by doctorpangloss »

ceejayoz wrote: post #246
hacker_homie wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

you are arguing with people who are being academic to a fault, unable to see how they've been co-opted. that said, i appreciate the commentary from real lawyers - i LIKE academic stuff even if the real, hard embodied politics of it all is straightforward.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#268

Post by arjie »

mothballed wrote: post #253
arjie wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So many historical curiosities in this whole thing. Hawaii vs Puerto Rico, for instance, the latter having more people but not a state. I imagine we put up with the Samoan rules because we wanted the strategic base. My own citizenship rests on the fact that other territories have been included into birthright citizenship by statute.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#269

Post by overfeed »

Telemakhos wrote: post #225
fmobus wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS decides that some people, in certain circumstances, are not in jurisdiction of US law, then they have to apply that notion everywhere. They can't pick and choose "oh no they are in jurisdiction of law A but not in law B". Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept, there's no middle ground. As for whether people are really doing birth tourism: sure, there might be some cases, but wel…

The fourteenth amendment doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" but "subject to the jurisdiction": if you break a window as a tourist, you expect to be prosecuted because you committed a crime within that jurisdiction, but you do not expect to be conscripted into military service or to pay income tax, because you are not subject to the jurisdiction. Birth tourism is definitely an issue for conservatives worried about…

> The right is concerned that Chinese-American dual citizens born in the US but raised in China might, upon reaching adulthood, act with impunity as US-citizen agents of the Chinese Communist Party.

The US seems fully committed not to learn from its past. I suppose the expectations are for expulsions and/or west-coast internment camps for Chinese-Americans should there be a hot war between the US and China. It figures, since the MAGA is all for turning back the clock.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#270

Post by triceratops »

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…

> Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship.

Closer to 82% actually, depending on how you count countries. Almost every country in the Western hemisphere has it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Post reply on HN