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

371–380 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#371

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

phainopepla2 wrote: post #345
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Following the implications of this argument leads to some pretty hairy places. If a person is incapable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position, then how is a fair law even possible? Or perhaps the argument implies that people like that constitutional scholar have reached a state of purely detached enlightenment, and thus are exempt from this logic?

You misunderstand, or I didn’t explain it well, because you’re making the same argument that the constitutional scholar is making against originalists.

By narrowly interpreting the text exactly as a WL18CWM would have interpreted it (e.g. black people are not people), they’re not leaving room for interpretations of the constitution that would provide equal rights to people who are not WL18CWM:

  - The constitution grants rights
  - The authors have a bias (WL18CWM)
  - Originalists essentially ignore this bias, leading to fewer or restricted rights to people who are less similar to WL18CWM

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#372

Post by te_234354656 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #30
newaccount670 wrote: post #9

[flagged]

Agreed, especially when the “vacation” is actually birth tourism and the mother lied at the border.

How many folks "on the right" would be willing to use similar logic to nullify amendments they tend to like?

E.G.: "US guns are stolen and exported to foreign gangs. Therefore, the text of the 2nd Amendment is entirely null and void and should be 'corrected' by the Supreme Court"

It is not be the job of the Supreme Court to "correct" Constitutional amendments!

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#373

Post by CGMthrowaway »

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…

"absent a constitutional amendment"

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#374

Post by derdi »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #311
Windchaser wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Population degrowth may do more harm than good. One billionaire with a private jet does more harm than thousands.

Can you expand on the harm of degrowth? I usually see it framed in terms of "our state retirement system is an obvious pyramid scheme that is about to collapse, we need to keep the scam going as long as we can". Are there better reasons to worry?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#375

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

rayiner wrote: post #364
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, and politely, wtf is that logic?

You are disenfranchised when your judicial branch interprets law in a way that disproportionately benefits only the people who are most similar to the authors.

Also, how wealthy are you? Why did you bring up your race instead of how much land you own? Why pull the culture war into this? Certain interpretations of the constitution disproportionately benefit people who own a lot of land.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#376

Post by throwawalien »

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.

yes because DACA recipients do not live in fear of conservatives trying to remove them from their homes. (this)[https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/during...] was literally 3 weeks ago

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#378

Post by CGMthrowaway »

thehoff wrote: post #151
fmobus wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, when I enter as a tourist, I'm not in jurisdiction? Sweet! Crime time!

Genuine question. Isn't this statement aimed at citizenship tourism or whatever its called? I used to live in a state where some new friends had told us about places that facilitated pregnant women's trips to the US solely for the purpose of staying and giving birth in the US so the child could become citizens. They then head home. I have no idea how prevalent this is.

> I used to live in a state where some new friends had told us about places that facilitated pregnant women's trips to the US solely for the purpose of staying and giving birth in the US so the child could become citizens. They then head home. I have no idea how prevalent this is.

As many as 26,000 mothers do it (birth tourism) every year.

CIS analyzed U.S. Census Bureau data to track the number of foreign-born mothers who gave birth in the United States. Researchers cross-referenced those births against federal figures of temporary visitors. They isolated foreign mothers who arrived on short-term visas, gave birth, and did not establish long-term residency in the U.S. CIS concluded that 20,000 to 26,000 births annually are attributable to women arriving on short-term tourist visas specifically to obtain citizenship for their children.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#379

Post by khriss »

outside1234 wrote: post #250
padjo wrote: post #114

The crazy thing here is that 4 supposedly conservative Supreme Court justices wanted to overturn over a century of precedent on how the constitution was interpreted.

They took this case so they can appear to be reasonable while doing wild stuff in other cases.

Exactly. Notice the ruling after ruling from the Supreme court strengthening the power of corporations and moneyed interests.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#380

Post by CGMthrowaway »

Windchaser wrote: post #109
consensus1 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a difficult and selective immigration process that rejects the vast majority of applicants is not a problem. It is exactly how an immigration system should work. We want the best.

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…

"Broken borders" is an oxymoron. Something we cannot tolerate. Borders, by their nature, are our definition as a nation and our protection as a country. Broken borders do not exist. We cannot tolerate them. Strong border control must be part and the first part of any comprehensive immigration reform. It's the obligation of our elected officials to keep the American people safe, and our borders are one of our early lines of defense to do that. It used to be our first and only line of defense, but in this age of technology, more is possible.
Post reply on HN