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

541–550 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#541

Post by danny_codes »

jjallen wrote: post #7

You can be pro/fine with legal immigration (and moderate/non-partisan) and still not think birthright citizenship is a good idea (like I do). Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship. It creates perverse incentives. Reminds me of legal abortion: practically everywhere in the world has it. If you are not in that vast majority you should be taking a very close look at yourself/things. So y…

Birthright citizenship is one of the best things we have going for us. I see no reason why we should treat people differently depending on whether or not they have an imaginary stamp labeling them as special (IE, as citizens). Birthright citizenship ensures the problem of unequal representation is fixed over time. A self-fixing function, if you will.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#542

Post by danny_codes »

MisterMower wrote: post #499
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

Imagine a country extending citizenship to a whole group of people for no reason other than the location of their birth, and then allowing said people to access the benefits of citizenship, including the ability to receive welfare benefits, vote, and run for office.

That sounds like a great idea. The more citizens of your country the better. Note that US citizens pay taxes no matter where they live. So it's not a free ride by any means.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#543

Post by danny_codes »

MisterMower wrote: post #523
wat10000 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to work fine. Dozens of countries do this. It's not some weird hypothetical nor is the US some bizarre outlier.

The fact that a guy like Trump was ever elected in the first place would imply it is not working fine. Half of the electorate supports his anti-immigration policies. In an alternate universe where immigration laws were properly enforced he may never have been elected. Further, just because something has never been an issue in the past doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future. The US is an outlier in being the only larg…

But his base is largely not people benefiting from birthright citizenship (at least, not recently).. so if anything Trump would be an indicator that we need more immigration to counter the homegrown, um, MAGAts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#544

Post by remarkEon »

danny_codes wrote: post #541
jjallen wrote: post #7

You can be pro/fine with legal immigration (and moderate/non-partisan) and still not think birthright citizenship is a good idea (like I do). Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship. It creates perverse incentives. Reminds me of legal abortion: practically everywhere in the world has it. If you are not in that vast majority you should be taking a very close look at yourself/things. So y…

Birthright citizenship is one of the best things we have going for us. I see no reason why we should treat people differently depending on whether or not they have an imaginary stamp labeling them as special (IE, as citizens). Birthright citizenship ensures the problem of unequal representation is fixed over time. A self-fixing function, if you will.

I think what you mean to say is that as a result of this ruling the voice of Americans can be diluted over time so that your preferred political outcomes can happen. Not everyone in my country believes that the concept of the nation state is stupid and should be done away with. I understand that there are many who do think this, and I have to live amicably among them, but it doesn't mean that I need to pretend that your ideas are good for me and my kin.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#545

Post by bryanrasmussen »

rayiner wrote: post #441
coldtea wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a person is incapable of reasoning outside of their class/race/gender/etc position, then how is a fair law even possible? An entirely fair law might not be possible, at least as long as people with specific class/race/gender interests overwhelmingly influence it. But a somewhat fair law or a law fairer than another, is. And, at least as I understand it, the scholar doesn't say that nobody is ever "capable of rea…

> Just that those making the constitution weren't that good at it. They were exceedingly good at it. In my country’s constitution we have all sorts of things from the american constitution, like due process, because we literally have no indigenous words for these concepts.

They were extremely good, but they were not near angelic geniuses gathered together and possessed of greater wisdom and capacity by virtue of that gathering than any people ever before or since, which is what many people who like to talk up the founding fathers would have.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#546

Post by henry2023 »

igjjigjk wrote: post #536
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.

[dead]

Not sure if his status as sex offender is relevant in this discussion but it’s funny to see the stereotype in action.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#547

Post by camgunz »

AngryData wrote: post #528
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,…

Fully automatic guns maybe not, but the founding fathers definitely knew about repeating firearms, they had more than a few offers to purchase them, both for military uses and as private citizens. They just denied to because it was expensive to purchase and maintain.

No. While originalists and textualists purport to refuse to extend any principle into the modern day ("no right to privacy in 3A, 4A, etc"), one they do is that 2A doesn't merely apply to arms of the day, but also to modern arms. It's... pretty blatant.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#548

Post by denismenace »

danny_codes wrote: post #543
MisterMower wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that a guy like Trump was ever elected in the first place would imply it is not working fine. Half of the electorate supports his anti-immigration policies. In an alternate universe where immigration laws were properly enforced he may never have been elected. Further, just because something has never been an issue in the past doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future. The US is an outlier in being the only larg…

But his base is largely not people benefiting from birthright citizenship (at least, not recently).. so if anything Trump would be an indicator that we need more immigration to counter the homegrown, um, MAGAts

So you want to diminish the voting power of the native population through mass immigration?

Tell me how this rhetoric would not radicalize any normal citizen.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#550

Post by denismenace »

voakbasda wrote: post #26
jjallen wrote: post #7

You can be pro/fine with legal immigration (and moderate/non-partisan) and still not think birthright citizenship is a good idea (like I do). Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship. It creates perverse incentives. Reminds me of legal abortion: practically everywhere in the world has it. If you are not in that vast majority you should be taking a very close look at yourself/things. So y…

A belief held by the majority does not make it better simply for that fact. Not that long ago, the majority view was that slavery was a great thing, so I think you should see that argument falls fairly flat. Offering birthright citizenship makes the US better than 95% of the other countries. Not worse.

> Offering birthright citizenship makes the US better than 95% of the other countries. Not worse.

No arguments why its better, just stating it as if its fact.

Most countries do not have it because it creates many preverse incentives (such as anchor babies). This especially in countries which are targets of immigration (such as the US).

Post reply on HN