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

531–540 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#531

Post by skulk »

mothballed wrote: post #526
skulk wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> congress during some fluke period when the filabuster can be overcome. If the clouds part and Jesus himself descended from the heavens, you'd ask him to ... discourage anchor babies? Surely there are better and more pressing uses of his power.

If you're asking me personally, on this topic? Wide open borders, not even a wall, zero employment eligibility checks, but no welfare. Only way to win is to also benefit others in voluntary trade or seek voluntary charity. I have no problem with "illegal" immigrants, only those who purposefully target and drain the coffers of Americans by popping in for a citizen-baby and then run every public benefit available with…

I'm asking you, is this really such a big problem that it requires getting rid of welfare? Is the US financially in trouble because it pays out welfare to undeserving layabouts? I seriously doubt it.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#532

Post by graveemaster »

qingcharles wrote: post #527
lazide wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This. Getting enough states to agree on a change would be a fool's errand I think. It seems like the reds and blues can't agree on anything at all any longer.

I agree 99% with you, except when it comes to these enormous data centers. When you look at the local zoning committee meetings, you're seeing Reds, Blues and Ind mostly calling for a moratorium on build sites in their communities.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#533

Post by recursivecaveat »

ImJamal wrote: post #448
voakbasda wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Not that long ago, the majority view was that slavery was a great thing A bit of a tangent, but is that actually the case? The highest estimate I have seen puts slave ownership at 5% of the population while the lowest puts it at 1%. Obviously just because somebody doesn't own slaves doesn't mean they didn't support the system. There could be economic or legal reasons they couldn't own a slave. I am just not sure th…

People are pretty expensive (they're literally worth a lifetime of free labor). 1 slave would've been like 3 complete years income for an average free white southerner to purchase, plus ongoing expenses obviously. So they basically end up in the hands of upper class people who have a steady need for lots of manual labor. Doesn't mean that everyone else around was not benefiting from the economic surplus, or was not supportive of the institution.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#534

Post by insane_dreamer »

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…

> Also ~95% of countries don't have unconditional birthright citizenship.

most of the countries in the Americas do

> let's amend the constitution

go ahead and give it a try. I'd start with getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, then we can talk about the 14th.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#535

Post by insane_dreamer »

qalmakka wrote: post #42
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?

To be fair a lot of it had also to do with the sheer immense amount of vast, mostly unused ,fertile land available in north America. I sincerely doubt the American experiment would have worked this well if they had rowdy neighbours and infighting due to resource constraints. For almost 200 years the solution to most things in the USA was to get a chunk of either their people or immigrant to move to the neck of the wo…

> sheer immense amount of vast, mostly unused ,fertile land available in north America

it was not "available", it only became "available" after we killed off nearly all the inhabitants and stole their land

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#536

Post by igjjigjk »

qingcharles wrote: post #336
ceejayoz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So reversing the scenario - an illegal immigrant kills me - can't be prosecuted? Because they're not under US jurisdiction?

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]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#540

Post by whateveracct »

solid_fuel wrote: post #295
atonse wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't agree that any of these cases are "most obvious" given that it's gone all the way through various appeals courts to the supreme court - and that's the mission of the Supreme Court, to interpret all the various situations for these cases and how they apply constitutionally.

Here is the full text of the relevant section of the 14th: > 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,…

literally on the tin
Post reply on HN