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

361–370 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#361

Post by derdi »

rayiner wrote: post #216
IAmBroom wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That flies in the face of what I understand is true about diplomatic immunity. Citation required. As a less extreme example, diplomats can and DO park their vehicles illegally: in No Parking zones, Handicap Only zones, and blocking fire hydrants. Diplomat plates render the police unable to ticket them. It's civil not criminal courts, but for the exact reason that they are immune to our laws.

[flagged]

IANAL, but it seems to me like the US could totally pass laws regulating Germans on German soil. It just couldn't enforce them in US courts (short of kidnapping Germans from German soil, or luring them to the US somehow). So it would be mostly pointless but not impossible.

Also, multiple countries have laws claiming universal jurisdiction. As I understand it, French laws against genocide denial claim to apply universally.

From your own discussion, it seems like "subject to the jurisdiction" should be understood as "can be judged in court". Diplomat is immune = can't be judged = not subject to jurisdiction. Immunity lifted = can be judged = subject to jurisdiction.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#362

Post by russdill »

pixel_popping wrote: post #318
russdill wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is no problem having mechanisms in place for edge cases where the child has been abandoned, parents both dead and so-on.

I appreciate that you can look at the current political climate and imagine that such edge cases would be handled in a compassionate way.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#363

Post by erxam »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #319
solid_fuel wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#364

Post by rayiner »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #299
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.

My favorite argument (presented by a constitutional scholar) against originalism is that a constitution interpreted precisely as written by wealthy, landed 18th century white men disenfranchises every person who is not a wealthy, landed 18th century white man, roughly in proportion to how much they share in common with such a person. Edit: the scholar is Kate Shaw. She presents her arguments a lot more coherently tha…

We have no concept of free speech, due process, or individual rights in Asia where I’m from. Where I’m from, if the community doesn’t like you, we can just drive you out of the community. Am I “disenfranchised” by having to live in a liberal democracy created by white men?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#365

Post by rayiner »

throw0101d wrote: post #302
rayiner wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> […] children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities? AIUI, IANAL, US courts and law do not have jurisdiction over diplomats. When a diplomat the 'hosting' government agrees to immunity, so cannot be prosecuted. E.g.: > The collision caused diplomatic tension between British and US officials. [Anne] Sacoolas fled Britain soon after the incident, an…

Incorrect: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity

U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain things, such as suits related to commercial activities.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#366

Post by sanderjd »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #344
sanderjd wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the language is ambiguous at all , and I consider it shocking and beneath the dignity of the Court that this was not a unanimous decision (and that the case was taken at all).

What does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? How can one be in the US and not subject to the jurisdiction?

What do you think the answers to these questions are? Are you genuinely unsure?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#367

Post by gred »

thrance wrote: post #309
gred wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Yes, educated people tend to lean left, since the right is so anti-intellectual. But virtually all media in this country (both social and legacy) belongs to the far right pedophile oligarchs currently running this country to the ground to fatten their pockets.

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#368

Post by rayiner »

cco wrote: post #356
solid_fuel wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The word jurisdiction is where it gets confusing. The meaning of that word does not map 1:1 to its modern usage. To wit, if we read it as "subject to the laws of the land", then the invading army exception does not make sense, invading soldiers are subject to the laws of the United States and have been tried and convinced of violating them. Note, diplomat exception still makes sense, they _are not_ subject to the law…

It doesn’t cover diplomats either because courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain non-criminal matter.

> vast majority of folks arguing against it are doing so in bad faith

What’s “bad faith” about it?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#369

Post by FireBeyond »

mothballed wrote: post #182
archagon wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An aside, but it’s a bit funny to focus on the plain-text reading of “shall not be infringed” and not “a well-regulated militia.”

Give me a plain-text explanation as to why a well-regulated militia can be infringed from having a 1987 select fire infantry rifle but not a 1985 one, both of which are probably the most bread and butter arms you could possibly consider as part of a well-regulated militia. (This despite the plain-text ascribes the right to "people" not the militia, and in any case US code defines virtually every able bodied citizen m…

So biological weapons are back on the cards then? As armaments doesn't mean "firearms" but "weapons of war".

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#370

Post by derdi »

clates wrote: post #358
Windchaser wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes sense to me. When women have more choices, they tend to put off having kids or they raise their standards - for their economic situation before kids, for partners, etc. I think this is good; insofar as women have children, it should be because they want to, not because they're pushed into it. I'll say - it also wouldn't kill us to have slightly fewer people on the planet. We're already taxing much of our sys…

> I'll say - it also wouldn't kill us to have slightly fewer people on the planet. We're already taxing much of our systems/ecosystems past their breaking points. Smarter people than me, entire groups of scientists, are saying that what we're doing now is badly unsustainable and we're heading for trouble. If you believed this, would you be against sterilizing third world populations to limit the overall population gr…

"X is bad" is obviously not a license to commit genocide to lessen the effects of X.

Easy, very affordable access to birth control (both information and actual physical stuff) for all humans is a very good idea.

Post reply on HN