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

271–280 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#271

Post by sanderjd »

thehoff wrote: post #151
fmobus wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, when I enter as a tourist, I'm not in jurisdiction? Sweet! Crime time!

Genuine question. Isn't this statement aimed at citizenship tourism or whatever its called? I used to live in a state where some new friends had told us about places that facilitated pregnant women's trips to the US solely for the purpose of staying and giving birth in the US so the child could become citizens. They then head home. I have no idea how prevalent this is.

Yes, the Justices in dissent have an ideological opposition to "citizenship tourism" and are working backward from that to find it to be out of scope of the Constitutional language. But that's wrong, that's not their job.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#272

Post by dmitrygr »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #131
ryandrake wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Root cause it. The USA does not have an illegal immigration problem. It has a "huge, slow immigration bureaucracy" problem that makes the legal path so slow and difficult that people are incentivized to gamble on illegal paths.

There exist a large number of legal pathways to permanent residency in the US, some of which do take unreasonably long; employment-based green card applications for Indian nationals famously have a decade-long waiting period. They should be reformed and improved. But a big part of the problem is that many people do not have a legal pathway available to them, and either don't believe that or don't wish to accept it. S…

> a big part of the problem is that many people do not have a legal pathway available to them

I have no legal pathway to own the moon. That does not mean I get to just take it. Just cause you want something does not mean there must exist a way for you to get it...

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#273

Post by verdverm »

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…

> It creates perverse incentives

Perhaps advantageous, America has been the product of these incentives and still sits atop the world on most hegemon metrics. It amazes me how many people complain about the post-WW2 world order America built and benefits from more than any other country.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#274

Post by ceejayoz »

eqmvii wrote: post #249
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.

It's tricky because dissenting doesn't necessarily mean you'd reach the opposite conclusion in every respect. In this case, I really doubt even the most conservative justices believe "birthright citizenship means whatever an Executive Order says it does." At a minimum, we know they aren't signing on to the reasoning the 5 in the majority used. And then we can learn whatever they feel like saying in the dissent, but a…

Per Thomas's dissent:

> The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#275

Post by ithkuil »

thehoff wrote: post #151
fmobus wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, when I enter as a tourist, I'm not in jurisdiction? Sweet! Crime time!

Genuine question. Isn't this statement aimed at citizenship tourism or whatever its called? I used to live in a state where some new friends had told us about places that facilitated pregnant women's trips to the US solely for the purpose of staying and giving birth in the US so the child could become citizens. They then head home. I have no idea how prevalent this is.

If people really want to stop this kind of birth citizenship tourism they must vote for people who will pledge to amend the constitution using the proper democratic process.

But today's climate is so hostile to any kind of rational discussion about how to change laws. One faction just wants to deny citizenship right now to any people they seem not "american enough" while the other faction cannot possibly entertain any change to the current system or else It would concede something to the populist faction

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#276

Post by sanderjd »

rayiner wrote: post #197
fmobus wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS decides that some people, in certain circumstances, are not in jurisdiction of US law, then they have to apply that notion everywhere. They can't pick and choose "oh no they are in jurisdiction of law A but not in law B". Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept, there's no middle ground. As for whether people are really doing birth tourism: sure, there might be some cases, but wel…

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.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#277

Post by dmitrygr »

greggoB wrote: post #64
returningfory2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the US is one of the most (the most?) successful countries in recent human history, shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the 95% be looking at the US and seeing what to copy?

Define successful? (You'll probably want to avoid metrics like happiness indices and life expectancy though)

Nobel prizes? Manned moon landings? Reserve currencies? AC units per capita?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#278

Post by sanderjd »

rayiner wrote: post #207
rootusrootus wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, the use of the word jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment is meaningless, too ambiguous to rely on. Unless we think the Constitution should be living, breathing, and adapt to the current political environment. Is that the current conservative viewpoint?

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.

Post reply on HN