Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

Post by bryanlarsen » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:06 PM UTC

Windchaser wrote: post #127

bryanlarsen wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly fewer is good. A rate of around 1.8 kids per woman seems slow but it's an exponential so it's still quite significant. Parts of the world have reached 1.0 kids per woman, which is a halving of the population per generation, which will put a massive strain on our resources

> which will put a massive strain on our resources True, but again, scientists are saying that we're already putting massive strain on our ecological resources, and the strain is only increasing. Not just climate change, but ocean acidification, modification of biogeochemical balances, habitat destruction, etc. We are at genuine risk of accidentally wrecking the ecosystems we depend on. https://www.science.org/doi/10…

Post by solid_fuel » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:07 PM UTC

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?

Post by graemep » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

fmobus wrote: post #188

graemep wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can see it is almost entirely countries in the Americas plus Pakistan that have real birthright citizenship. Everywhere else has some restriction such as stateless parents, or multiple generations born in the country, or a minimum period of residence or similar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Hate to be that guy, but this a pet peeve of mine that pisses me of... The term "birthright" means "a right that is derived from the circumstances of your birth". Virtually ALL countries grant citizenship by consequence of the circumstances of birth, but what circumstances they consider vary. For some countries, the circumstance is "birth happened in the soil of the country" (jus soli), for others, it's "birth was to…

Post by kjellsbells » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:10 PM UTC

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?

Post by pfannkuchen » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

solid_fuel wrote: post #295

atonse wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here is the full text of the relevant section of the 14th: > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…