Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

Post by NetMageSCW » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:39 PM UTC

ventana wrote: post #190

fmobus wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizenship means having political rights. If it's decided at some point that a martian may have political rights...then yes, as it stands, their offspring would have citizenship upon birth/ejection/hatching/transmogrification or whatever means of reproduction they use. This is really no different than if we decided that a dolphin or a naked mole rat are able to hold political rights. If an understanding that this is…

You are surely oversimplifying it. The amendment clearly says "born or naturalized"; can hatching or transmogrification be considered a birth? We need to look at the original meaning of the word "born" in 1868. Also, it does not say anything about having political rights, just about being a "person", which will surely start a separate debate :)

Post by dgellow » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:41 PM UTC

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.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:42 PM UTC

qingcharles wrote: post #326

ceejayoz wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I've laughed ever since United States v. Jones (2012), the GPS tracker-stuck-to-vehicle case. The justices actively debated what the historical equivalent of 24/7 digital tracking would look like in 1791. This prompted the famous hypothetical of an officer secretly squeezing into the trunk of a horse-drawn carriage to track someone's movements over several days. The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever…

Post by clates » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:48 PM UTC

sheept wrote: post #89

mritterhoff wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect OP mean declining fertility rate. USA population is still increasing, but is slowing down, and will sharply drop if the fertility rate remains below replacement of ~2 children per woman.

I believe OP is referring to how immigration is the only known working solution to a decreasing population. The US fertility rate is already 1.6 births per woman[0], and the population is only not decreasing because it still receives far more immigration than, say, Japan or South Korea. [0]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr038.pdf

Post by TheCoelacanth » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:52 PM UTC

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #170

Windchaser wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kavanaugh ruled that Trump's EO wasn't unconstitutional, just contrary to federal law, and Congress could change the law there if they wanted. So, this makes it only 5-4 upholding the 14th amendment. Which is gods-damned crazy. We are that close to overturning major civil rights.

This would also overturn our ability to arrest or deport non-citizen, no? If the argument is that they are not under the jurisdiction of the US government, we cannot legally arrest or prosecute them? This would create chaos . Not to mention the tens of millions of citizens retroactively turned into stateless people!