Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#451

Post by lazide » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:13 AM UTC

anamax wrote: post #425

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,…

Radio, TV, cameras That said, breech loaders were used by the British during the Revolutionary War (the Ferguson Rifle) and multiple shots from a single barrel using multiple "touch holes" was well known. And then there's Puckle's gun.

The Gatling gun also predates any widespread gun control.

Notably, the Gatling gun is still legal almost everywhere, including California (lulz!).

If that is legal, what is the actual point of 99% if the rest of the bans, etc?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#452

Post by lazide » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:14 AM UTC

semiquaver wrote: post #413

qingcharles wrote: post #326

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…

> 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!

They mean ‘have you seen congress? Good luck’, not that the mechanism is mechanically harder to use.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#453

Post by lazide » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:14 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #404

qingcharles wrote: post #326

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."

Eh, since it would most likely be used to remove some key right….

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#454

Post by lazide » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:15 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #393

fakedang wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the right to bear arms extend to stuff like MANPADS, tanks and fighter aircraft?

I think that’s the only logical conclusion of the “shall not be infringed” absolutists. They shy away from admitting it, though. “Oh, those aren’t arms. They’re, uh, destructive devices!”

Most would be happy to allow them. Let god sort ‘em out, and all.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#455

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:16 AM UTC

andrekandre wrote: post #397

Telemakhos wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fourteenth amendment doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" but "subject to the jurisdiction": if you break a window as a tourist, you expect to be prosecuted because you committed a crime within that jurisdiction, but you do not expect to be conscripted into military service or to pay income tax, because you are not subject to the jurisdiction. Birth tourism is definitely an issue for conservatives worried about…

> or to pay income tax dont you have to pay income tax if you stayed and earned money? [0] https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxa...

Even better, Chinese anchor babies born in the USA are subject to pay income tax on income they earn in China. It’s not even clear they can get out of it by renouncing their citizenship when they turn 18 to take Chinese citizenship instead (when they have to decide). I think it’s more trouble than it’s worth now.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#456

Post by johnny22 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:18 AM UTC

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…

Their populations will follow the same pattern with increased education.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#457

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:20 AM UTC

throwawaypath wrote: post #443

ceejayoz wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> jurisdiction can be claimed by (1) the country where the crime occurred Or the birth, as it were?

>Or the birth, as it were? Not always. The people of American Samoa do not have birthright citizenship in the United States. They are clearly under the jurisdiction of the US.

"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."

They are not born/naturalized in the United States, but one of its territories. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is satisfied, but the other part is not.

(We can grant citizenship to territories by statute, like Puerto Rico, but the Constitution does not mandate it. American Samoa, thus far, doesn't seem to want it.)

The history of this is all a bit gross. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Cases

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#458

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:27 AM UTC

lazide wrote: post #454

ceejayoz wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s the only logical conclusion of the “shall not be infringed” absolutists. They shy away from admitting it, though. “Oh, those aren’t arms. They’re, uh, destructive devices!”

Most would be happy to allow them. Let god sort ‘em out, and all.

I tend to doubt it. Reagan and the NRA were quite happy to regulate guns when the Black Panthers showed up with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#459

Post by latency-guy2 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:28 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #337

qingcharles wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you were snuffed out on federal land, I think state law would reign in this situation, and the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory. In fact, I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States, to further complicate matters.

> the states can have jurisdiction over you just by being on their territory Go on, take that theory just the tiniest little step further logically. > I seem to remember a time when you could be a citizen of a state, but not of the United States... When was that?

> Go on, take that theory just the tiniest little step further logically.

So you take that step, is that illegal immigrant a citizen now because they killed someone?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#460

Post by cucumber3732842 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 1:31 AM UTC

fakedang wrote: post #384

ceejayoz wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep reading! > In Second Amendment cases, this Court applies the Amendment to semi-automatic handguns even though those did not exist in 1791 or 1868. "Shall not be infringed" apparently applies to unimaginably better weaponry, but they couldn't have anticipated immigrants being pregnant.

Does the right to bear arms extend to stuff like MANPADS, tanks and fighter aircraft?

It ought to.

If you can afford either of those you have enough invested in the system that you probably won't use it lightly and if you don't you should and that's kind of the system's problem.