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

501–510 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#501

Post by willmadden »

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

I agree. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the US balkanizes. That might not be a bad thing if it can happen peacefully.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#502

Post by throwawaypath »

ceejayoz wrote: post #487
throwawaypath wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are not born/naturalized in the United States They are clearly born in the United States , the territories are part of the United States. The United States is the sovereign state of American Samoa. The point you're making is exactly the point I was making. We define by statue and court precedent which territories are magically included in this. American Samoa was included and considered in the United States and…

The United States is made up of… states. The United States also posesses some territories, which are not states. This is why Puerto Ricans got their citizenship by statue in 1917, rather than via the Fourteenth Amendment. > American Samoa was included and considered in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction" as recently as 2019… No, it wasn't. That case was overturned on appeal. It remains under US jurisd…

>The United States is made up of… states.

And territories, minor outlying islands, and a federal district.

>No, it wasn't.

Yes it was, the opinion of the court held that those born in American Samoa were born in the United States.:

>“Plaintiffs, having been born in the United States, and owing allegiance to the United States, are citizens by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Waddoups added.

It was eventually overturned, but the fact is a court's decision included American Samoa as "in the United States."

The point is courts can decide what is considered "under the jurisdiction there of" much as there can decide what is considered "in the United States." All it takes is another case to completely throw out the Insular Cases.

>In United States v. Vaello Madero, No. 20-303, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred and noted that "The Insular Cases have no foundation in the Constitution and rest instead on racial stereotypes. They deserve no place in our law."[32] Gorsuch argues that the Court must find a case to overrule the Insular Cases which were "based on racist assumptions and imperial ambitions."

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#503

Post by mothballed »

archagon wrote: post #423
mothballed wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

“Immigrant women are biological weapons” “Why are people censoring me for my opinions??? Cancel culture etc.” Barf.

If you're going to misportray about the qualifiers I used, why not just say "women are biological weapons" or "people are biological weapons."

You selectively dropped them off, because you are acting with deceit.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#504

Post by wookied »

jmyeet wrote: post #390

This particular Supreme Court is out of control. The Roberts court will (IMHO) go down in history in the same cateogry as the Taney court that gave us such decisions as Dred Scott. Supreme Court justices have always been political actors, not some high-minded academics that come down from their ivory tower to hand down missives every now and again (as some imagine). But this is a step beyond anything we've seen in a…

> All of this is incremental too. So today two cases were decided that essentially allowed states to ban trans athletes. The next step here is that trans athlets must be banned. Those cases are already percolating through lower courts and we'll see them in the next term most likely.

Actually what today's decision does is uphold Title IX rights for women and girls. Have you considered how this decision benefits female athletes?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#505

Post by rayiner »

coldtea wrote: post #472
rayiner wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

And some other country might be liking those Founding Fathers concepts' even more. So? Doesn't change the fact that they weren't very good with not letting class/race/gender/etc position influence their policy making. And that's the claim we're discussing whether they've been good at, not whether they came up with some good new concepts like "due process" and "the right to free speech". They had "due process" but the…

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#506

Post by mothballed »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #496
mothballed wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think two steps ahead, people aren't born right out of the sky. It encourages people to illegally enter for their citizenship baby and the parents remain illegal until ~21 years later when they can have the kid sponsor them. In the meantime the parents get free WIC even if they're illegal.

Is that sufficient reason to overturn a constitutional amendment by executive order?

No, the EO is dogshit malpractice of executive power. And the amendment is effectively impossible to amend in this day and age. We are stuck with birthright citizenship.

Realistically the only option we have that might work is shit-canning most welfare and incentives for non-productive immigrants to enter and make it pointless to pop out the kid unless you have a plan to make both them and yourselves productive members of society. Illegals showing up and popping out a kid and getting free WIC, claiming (stealing) the newborn citizen's welfare benefits, public schooling, chain migration via anchor baby etc are all going to have to be fixed through congress during some fluke period when the filabuster can be overcome.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#507

Post by rayiner »

coldtea wrote: post #440
rayiner wrote: post #364

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?

Well, the same white men created Jim Crow and seggregation. If you were a black man would you have been disenfranchised when those laws were in force? I'd say yes. The fact that it was/is worse elsewhere, e.g. in some places in Asia, doesn't make the critique (of how white Constitutional/law makers historically disenfranchised certain demographics in the US) invalid.

> you were a black man would you have been disenfranchised when those laws were in force?

In a counter-factual world where the founders hadn’t exported their ideas all over the world, I’d be disenfranchised in my own home country! Because everyone was disenfranchised. Everyone was a serf.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#508

Post by MisterMower »

greggoB wrote: post #338
dmitrygr wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are any of these stipulated as criteria anywhere? There's also proportion of adult in prisons, people who believe in angels, and the mass-shooting high score > AC units per capita This gave me a laugh

Despite all of those things people still travel across the world to give birth in US just so their posterity can become a part of our country. What other metric do you need?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#509

Post by wat10000 »

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.

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

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#510

Post by matthewdgreen »

abi wrote: post #44
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 worse than that. It's 5-4 on the read of the constitution since Kavanaugh doesn't think it violates the 14th amendment, just a federal statute.

It's worse than that. The text of the statute is literally the same as the text of the 14th amendment's birthright clause. So he's basically saying the text means one thing when it's a statute, but the exact same words might allow exceptions in the context of the Constitution.
Post reply on HN