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

461–470 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#461

Post by ceejayoz »

latency-guy2 wrote: post #459
ceejayoz wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

No. But they are certainly under our jurisdiction. They will be arrested, tried, and convicted accordingly.

If pregnant, their child, having been born in the US and under its jurisdiction, will be a citizen when born in prison.

They will not be sent home PNG like an ambassador.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#462

Post by cucumber3732842 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #458
lazide wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Hint: If someone says "yeah sure manpads are fine" they're not some fox news boomer who adores Reagan.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#463

Post by henry2023 »

arpinum wrote: post #75
qalmakka wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of crazy. The text of the amendment is as literal as it gets. If this had failed it would have basically meant emptying Congress of all of its powers, because now the executive can just pick whatever interpretation they deem fit to their goals and run with it. The rule of courts of law is to interpret the law, not to pick new creative meanings out of them. That's the role of the legislative power - other…

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not a clear statement.

It’s as clear as it gets. If a random tourist commits a felony in Nevada you wouldn’t be questioning if he should be subject to Nevada’s jurisdiction.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#465

Post by nradov »

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."

The slow pace of change is a feature, not a bug. It's fine to wait decades or centuries until we have broad consensus before making amendments. While this might seem maddeningly frustrating or unjust in the short term, in the long term it makes our republic more stable. The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. How many other major countries can say the same?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#466

Post by jkubicek »

solid_fuel wrote: post #436
cco wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 laws of the land. I don't agree with your assertion here. Do you have more details on the claim that "invading sol…

> I suspect the gray area would be around terrorists

Maybe this is a gray area in theory, but practically speaking I don't think it matters. The child has nothing to do with the parent's choices in life, do they deserve to be treated any differently than any other child born in the US?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#467

Post by [deleted] »

runamok wrote: post #53
sketchysandwich wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truly insane that this is one of the most important founding aspects of the country. Without which most, if not all, the population wouldn't legally be allowed to live here. But yet, you don't understand that.

Most Americans conveniently forget the whole "nation of immigrants" thing once they are a few generations removed from the situation. Ladder kickers the lot of them.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#468

Post by nradov »

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's an interesting legal question. Around the time that the US Constitution was written there were private citizens who owned artillery pieces and even entire warships.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#469

Post by andsoitis »

dgellow wrote: post #353
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.

They are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period. The fact all of that was predictable makes it just so frustrating to see it play out in real time

> hey are in the process of building a new country little by little. Eventually they will openly dismiss the US constitution. Things are really, really bad. We are pretty much in US‘s Weimar period.

Why the scaremongering? What are "they" waiting for?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#470

Post by zeroonetwothree »

ceejayoz wrote: post #285
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.

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,…

Machine guns are illegal in the US. SCOTUS has never ruled there is an individual right to own machine guns.
Post reply on HN