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

401–410 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#401

Post by GetTheFacts »

stephbook wrote: post #255
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?

I guess the obvious answer would be the same as the last decades, while anything else would be called "surprising." Which is is fine, you can change the constitution, but thats for parliament to do.

>Which is is fine, you can change the constitution, but thats for parliament to do.

To which Constitution are you referring? And which "parliament"?

The US Constitution can only be changed by votes by both supermajorities in both houses (House of Representatives and Senate) of Congress and the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states. We don't have a "parliament."

Are you referring to Canada's Constitution? Australia's? AFAIK, the UK has no Constitution and changes to Ireland's Constitution requires a national referendum.

Please do elucidate. Thanks!

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#402

Post by andrekandre »

rootusrootus wrote: post #205
ventana wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the other half of the country will probably have something to say about activist leftist justices with their agenda. This is just not the constructive way of arguing. Disclaimer: I'm a legal immigrant myself, and of course I appreciate the today's ruling in favor of jus soli.

What is the activist leftist agenda, anyway? Civil rights for everyone? Universal healthcare? The right wing activist agenda seems both better organized and universally punitive. One wants to force the government to help me, the other to punish me. And yet only the leftists are a danger to our country?

  > And yet only the leftists are a danger to our country?
its more like a danger to capital interests (restricting what businesses can do, universal programs reducing markets etc)... and alot of people associate that freedom as fundamental as anything (i'm not arguing either way btw, just my understanding)

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#403

Post by [deleted] »

FireBeyond wrote: post #369
mothballed wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#404

Post by krapp »

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…

>The issue here is that there's no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century. Bug or feature?

Given that this isn't an issue in any other modern democracy, I'd say "bug."

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#405

Post by mothballed »

FireBeyond wrote: post #369
mothballed wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#406

Post by lsaferite »

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?

Have you read the congressional debate around the that amendment to the Amendment? If you have and it's not clear, I'm not sure what else can be said.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#407

Post by lsaferite »

rainsford wrote: post #385
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?

Given that the most universally agreed to counter examples are diplomats and invading armies, I'd say a reasonable non-lawyer interpretation is that "subject to the jurisdiction" excludes people who are in some way under the authority or control of a foreign government even while in the US. They may be physically here, but they're presence is on behalf of a foreign government that has jurisdiction over them even whil…

Any interpretation that excludes non-citizens leaves us in a situation where we've disclaimed legal jurisdiction over the behavior of those individuals. The reductio ad absurdum there would be that they aren't subject to any laws of our country anymore.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#408

Post by ventana »

rootusrootus wrote: post #205
ventana wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the other half of the country will probably have something to say about activist leftist justices with their agenda. This is just not the constructive way of arguing. Disclaimer: I'm a legal immigrant myself, and of course I appreciate the today's ruling in favor of jus soli.

What is the activist leftist agenda, anyway? Civil rights for everyone? Universal healthcare? The right wing activist agenda seems both better organized and universally punitive. One wants to force the government to help me, the other to punish me. And yet only the leftists are a danger to our country?

Just for the record, I was responding to the (now flagged) comment which used some similar meaningless name calling towards the dissenting justices, to which I responded that this name calling game can be played by both sides.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#409

Post by Windchaser »

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…

> If you believed this, would you be against sterilizing third world populations to limit the overall population growth ( given those are the populations which continue to grow in this environment ) ?

...wow.

Is this a serious question?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#410

Post by Windchaser »

rayiner wrote: post #192
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Where does it say "jurisdiction" only refers to criminal law? Diplomats aren't excluded from being subject to civil laws for "commercial activities," and U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats in suits pertaining to such activities.

This then seems like an argument that the children of diplomats should be US citizens, not an argument against naturalized birth for immigrants.
Post reply on HN