Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

apnews.com

411–420 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#411
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation...

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You brought up race. I’m just responding.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#413

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…

  > no practical way to ever update the Bill of Rights in the 21st century
What on earth do you mean? The practical way is the same as it always was: subsequent amendment. The fact that it requires consensus is a feature.

This reads the same way as people who say things like “we just have to accept that Congress is broken and can’t pass new legislation.” Like hell we do!

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#414
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?

In general countries have jurisdiction over anyone inside their territory unless there is some exception.

As far as I know the only exceptions at the time the 14th was drafted and ratified would have been people with diplomatic immunity or similar due to treaties and international agreements.

Immediate families of diplomats living with the diplomat are included in diplomatic immunity, hence their children born here would not become citizens.

Those situations you mention where US court do have jurisdiction over diplomats are: private real estate disputes; wills and inheritance; business activity of diplomats that are running a side business or practicing a profession in the US that is not part of their official duties; lawsuits initiated by the diplomat.

Even if becoming subject to such limited jurisdiction counted as being "subject to the jurisdiction" for purposes of the 14th Amendment it would not matter because newborns are not involved in those things, and so newborn children of diplomats have their full diplomatic immunity.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#415
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why are you being so rude? Please don't put words in my mouth, that is nothing like what I believe. My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910. Were they literally Hitler also?

1910's America with Jim Crow segregation, pre-Womens suffrage, pretty much peak wealth inequality with robber barrons?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

> 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.

Against an invading army, sure. Against the cartel and drug-running, ok, I can see some reasoning there, although I'm not sure we're ever going to win the War on Drugs. But with regards to immigration, I don't see a solid argument that we need strong border control in order to "keep Americans safe". Studies show that immigrants commit crime at a lower rate, right? So how would stronger border control keep us safe? Economically, immigration helps us, enriches us. Culturally, also.

People joke "yep, gotta protect us from that Mexican grandma selling tamales out of her car", and I didn't want to throw that at you. But I don't think it's entirely that far from the truth.

There is a long and storied history of humans being afraid of foreigners. "They speak different, they have different values, they worship a different god. How can I know they're safe?"

But we humans often have more in common than differences, and cultural differences usually soften after a few decades in this big Melting Pot.

There are people who have interest in selling fear and distrust, even if that fear and distrust ends up hurting us as a society. When I hang out with people from other countries, I don't see this fear justified. Usually, I just see other people, who want to work and live and create art and fall in love and have a family, just like the rest of us. And if you've got legitimate fears, please bring 'em.. just do try to be careful that the fear is solidly based in reality, not just something sold by Fox News.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jurisdiction is not some singular concept that means the same thing in every context. You can have jurisdiction over some things in some contexts and not have jurisdiction over other things in other contexts.

Surely "subject to the jurisdiction" must mean subject to any jurisdiction, or it is completely meaningless.

That’s a plausible meaning but it erases the exceptions for diplomats and Indians that everyone agrees exist.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a word can have different meanings in different contexts but still have a clear meanings in each particular context. But I agree that “jurisdiction” doesn’t have a well defined meaning in the context of individuals being subject to the jurisdiction of a nation. In that case, the proper approach is to look at other evidence of what the drafters meant, which is what both the majority and dissents did.

This is not the only "proper approach" and what approach is proper is a hotly contested question. But it doesn't even matter, because in this case it is very clear what the drafters intended.

It’s not seriously contested anymore. Originalism won and now we are just fighting about how to apply it.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#419
post #83

Thank God. If only because this would open up people born here to having their citizenship retroactively revoked. The constitution is pretty clear. If you don't like it amend it. If anything we need to expand it to include anyone who gives birth in this country. If you're willing to deal with our horrible maternity care system and help keep up our declining population, you deserve a blue passport.

The U.S. Constitution is very far from being clear. The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to explain the meaning of what is written in the Constitution; there are 9 justices in the court and they often disagree on that. Just look at the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The "well regul…

There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in the US when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great summary! This is a case where all the opinions are quite good. I quite like Jackson’s opinion here. The framers of the 14th amendment were radical egalitarians and we shouldn’t lose sight of that.

Nah, the conservative opinions in this case aren't even worth the paper they are printed on. Every single court that saw this case decided the same way: birthright citizenship was intended to work exactly as it has been applied since its inception.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN