Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

Post by losvedir » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 8:50 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #219

consensus1 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by bediger4000 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 8:51 PM UTC

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...

Post by solid_fuel » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 8:51 PM UTC

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.

Post by mothballed » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 8:52 PM UTC

arjie wrote: post #268

mothballed wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by datsci_est_2015 » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 8:54 PM UTC

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.