Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#561

Post by fmobus » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 10:17 AM UTC

graemep wrote: post #315

fmobus wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hate to be that guy, but this a pet peeve of mine that pisses me of... The term "birthright" means "a right that is derived from the circumstances of your birth". Virtually ALL countries grant citizenship by consequence of the circumstances of birth, but what circumstances they consider vary. For some countries, the circumstance is "birth happened in the soil of the country" (jus soli), for others, it's "birth was to…

In this context it is a synonym for jus soli - birth happened on the soil of the country.~ Birthright has a few other meanings in wider contexts: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/birthri... Does it really matter if we add one more, especially as it is now a well established usage?

It matters. Because if the proposed executive order were to prevail, the US would effectively drastically change its citizenship assignment system, but it would still hinge on a right derived from a circumstance of your birth - a birthright. Essentially, it would move from "you are a citizen if you were _born_ in the country" to "you are a citizen if you were _born_ to a citizen".

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#562

Post by fmobus » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 10:22 AM UTC

Telemakhos wrote: post #225

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…

The fourteenth amendment doesn't say "within the jurisdiction" but "subject to the jurisdiction": if you break a window as a tourist, you expect to be prosecuted because you committed a crime within that jurisdiction, but you do not expect to be conscripted into military service or to pay income tax, because you are not subject to the jurisdiction. Birth tourism is definitely an issue for conservatives worried about…

Sorry, that makes zero sense. Why are you picking conscription into military service or obligation to pay income tax as the defining jurisdiction? Why those two things, and not something else?

Specifically, of those two things you selected: the first would be horrendously problematic as the defining jurisdiction, since it would exclude persons ineligible for conscription (women, disabled persons, etc), and the second wouldn't even have the effect you are suggesting, since persons on non-immigrant visas sometimes _are_ subject to income tax. Heck, I don't even reside in the US, am not a citizen, and I do pay income tax on my RSUs. What gives?

As for the Chinese spy/saboteur/etc: treason will still be treason, and it's not like your country was above internment camps.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#563

Post by bamboozled » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 10:25 AM UTC

willmadden wrote: post #501

dgellow wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When I see all the rot on the news I really wonder what the alternative is. It’s all so absurd I just wonder if there is a point where people just move on and form a new country / government and let the other country do ufc on the lawn or whatever.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#564

Post by mothballed » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 10:45 AM UTC

skulk wrote: post #531

mothballed wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes im absolutely certain the broken redistribution system is one of the most pressing problems in US, but of course its not the only one. Not because recipients dont "deserve" a living but rather it poisons the productive and it provides the wrong incentives to recipients while conditioning them to depend on a bloated government that now has total leverage on their life (and of course, virtually assured votes to whoever are bribing recipients with OPM redistributed away from the big bad other voter), all while speed running towards a ruinous national debt even if they deserved the moon and stars and were paid it.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#565

Post by redserk » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:17 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #517

ceejayoz wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The slow pace of change is a feature, not a bug. To a point. It seems to have ground to a halt . > The USA has had an uninterrupted system of government since 1789. How many other major countries can say the same? Quite a few of them can say "we took those good ideas and built on them".

In what sense has it ground to a halt? Eight amendments have been ratified in the past 100 years. I think some people are taking a very short-term view here and lack a historical perspective. Let's see how those other countries are doing 100 years from now.

A government structure that changes isn’t inherently bad. The US has gone through multiple iterations just by reinterpreting a document. Other countries tend to be a bit more explicit in this.

The US in 2026 operates fundamentally differently than in 1910, and both are unrecognizable to 1801.

The document was written when there were 13 states, and at best, appetite for a mere handful of others to join. For example, the degree of the weaponization of state-carving in the mid-19th century wasn’t in the cards. A 26 member upper legislature operates substantially different than one comprised of 100 members.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#566

Post by like_any_other » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:20 AM UTC

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

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#567

Post by anon373839 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:27 AM UTC

camgunz wrote: post #547

AngryData wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trump v. United States tells you everything you need to know about the jurists who claim to follow those doctrines. There isn’t a shred of originalism or textualism supporting it.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#568

Post by malnourish » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:45 AM UTC

like_any_other wrote: post #566

dgellow wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

The United States has always dealt with this - the North Virginian voters circa 1960 were not, by and large, indigenous.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#569

Post by malnourish » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:51 AM UTC

denismenace wrote: post #548

danny_codes wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's kind of the history of the United States.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#570

Post by like_any_other » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 11:57 AM UTC

malnourish wrote: post #568

like_any_other wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The United States has always dealt with this - the North Virginian voters circa 1960 were not, by and large, indigenous.

> The United States has always dealt with this

Did you mean to write "America" instead of "the United States"? Because when the continent had only American Indians, there was no United States. And in fact for a long while after it was founded, they were excluded from citizenship.

Regardless, I'm sure we both agree that European conquest and colonization represented a giant change. It's false to imply that another such change isn't a change, by virtue of it happening once before already. Or to imply that therefore, the country is compelled to submit to such a change.