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

281–290 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#281

Post by azeemba »

eqmvii wrote: post #249
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…

But since we have the dissent opinions, it's not tricky at all to see why they are dissenting.

Alito and Thomas straight up believe that the constitution does not provide birthright citizenship and the executive order is valid. Gorsuch mostly agrees but makes an exception if the parents plan to stay in the US. Kavanaugh agrees that birthright citizenship is not provided by the constitution, instead he argues its a federal statute that congress can overturn (but the president cannot)

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#282

Post by cguess »

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 you read Roberts's opinion he literally explains the definition of jurisdiction as it stood when the amendment was drafted (he cites three different dictionaries) and cites floor arguments directly from the Congressional record. It's not long, takes about 15 minutes to get through.

The rest of the documents are the concurrences (Jackson) and the three, frankly insane, dissents. Thomas's is 90 pages long somehow (I couldn't get through all that one, it's properly crazy).

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#283

Post by Windchaser »

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…

No, I don't advocate for open borders. I'm fine with keeping out criminals, people who don't value our democratic system, or people who aren't interested in being productive members of society (e.g., NEETs - people not either working or getting educated).

> Your idea is borderline insane. ... someone on the left who lacks fundamental self preservation instincts ...

Huh. Well, checking, checking... I don't feel insane. I'm feeling pretty calm, rational, and evidence-driven.

The two big risks I see from large-scale immigration is this: - people who don't agree with liberal secular democracy. E.g., religious fanatics who want to enact a theocracy. That's all good; I'm fine with screening those out. - economic damage. But here, again, the economic data shows that immigration distinctly benefits the US, mostly through economies of scale, but also partly through higher-than-average rates of college attendance and entrepreneurship in 1st- and 2nd-generation immigrants, leading to higher earnings and innovation.

There definitely are also localized *negative* impacts from immigration, particularly for overwhelmed healthcare and education systems. These do not outweigh the national net benefits - meaning, the US still benefits as a whole - but I can understand that people living in those areas or culturally affiliated with them would be anti-immigration. But these are problems we could very much tackle if we wanted to: the federal government has more than enough resources to help these locales, while still getting the long-term and nation-wide benefits from increased immigration.

So: no, I flatly deny that I'm not concerned with self-preservation. Yes, I care about compassion and fairness, but it's quite reasonable to ask that fairness and compassion be balanced with self-preservation. And yet - even after considering self-preservation, we still benefit from increased immigration.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#284

Post by sanderjd »

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…

This has nothing to do with whether it is a good idea. The question is whether the 14th amendment plainly says that this is the law of the land in the US, which it plainly does.

That three Justices chose to attempt to gaslight us about this is a disgrace. I'll never trust their judgement again.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#285

Post by ceejayoz »

deep_concern wrote: post #280

If you shift from being a living constitutionalist to a strict textualist based on the case in question, then what you really are is a machiavellian.

Kavanaugh's dissent is kinda hilarious in this context.

> The original constitutional principles do not change absent a constitutional amendment, but the relevant principles— both the rules and exceptions alike—must be faithfully applied not only to circumstances as they existed in 1787, 1791, and 1868, for example, but also to modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers.

This, of course, doesn't include machine guns.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#286

Post by sanderjd »

newaccount670 wrote: post #9

[flagged]

Maybe so, but it isn't any of the Supreme Court's business. The 14th amendment is very clear. And yep, if you don't like that amendment, you're free to advocate for a new amendment that says something different.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#287

Post by triceratops »

Chu4eeno wrote: post #27
root_axis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it insane?

I'm not him, but it creates some perverse incentives (like chinese billionaires who pay american surrogates to get implanted with dozens of their kids who get american citizenship). https://fortune.com/article/chinese-billionaire-xu-bo-father... might be an outlier, but it's still weird, especially since the US is the only country that has this.

You're saying billionaires are deliberately hanging American taxation of worldwide income around their kids necks?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#288

Post by tacticalturtle »

glitchc wrote: post #36
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…

The US has always been a country of immigrants; the Constitution recognizes and enshrines this fact. Amending this rule requires a federal supermajority (66% in House and Senate) or a state majority (66% of state legislatures vote in favor of said amendment). Given how difficult it is to find consensus on even the most banal issue, it's unclear whether there would be sufficient support to ever amend.

> Amending this rule requires a federal supermajority (66% in House and Senate) or a state majority (66% of state legislatures vote in favor of said amendment).

This is actually just the first step - to propose an amendment.

To ratify it requires 3/4 of the state legislatures (or state “conventions”) to vote in favor.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#289

Post by sanderjd »

TimorousBestie wrote: post #87
newaccount670 wrote: post #9

[flagged]

I’m curious why you believe an amendment will help your situation. This case (placed alongside many others in recent memory) demonstrates that no matter how clear and unequivocal a legal text you write, the textualists can find a way to overturn it. So what specific legal text for this amendment of yours do you believe is immune from that degree of sophistry?

Yep. Could not be more disappointed in Gorsuch here. What is the point of writing things down in the Constitution if Justices are just going to vote for their preferred ideology and come up with embarrassingly thin justifications for whatever they think the document should say?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#290

Post by iAMkenough »

sleepyguy wrote: post #156
iAMkenough wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While maybe a small scale issue, the solution isn’t an authoritative order that tries to rewrite the U.S. Constitution and bypass democracy.

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

No perhaps. A change to the U.S. Constitution requires a democratic process, not achievable by authoritarian executive order.
Post reply on HN