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

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#611

Post by IAmBroom » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #364

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite argument (presented by a constitutional scholar) against originalism is that a constitution interpreted precisely as written by wealthy, landed 18th century white men disenfranchises every person who is not a wealthy, landed 18th century white man, roughly in proportion to how much they share in common with such a person. Edit: the scholar is Kate Shaw. She presents her arguments a lot more coherently tha…

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?

You seem to lack an understanding of technical legal terms in US courts, which is frankly pretty usual even for US citizens.

"Franchise" is the right to vote. Disenfranchisement is legal prohibition against voting. Social behaviors have nothing to do with it.

"Jus soli" is a legal term in English, defined by the chief authority (Black's Dictionary of Legal Terms) as rights achieved by one's place of birth (instead of by one's parentage).

Diplomats are only partially subject to civil law as you have claimed. There is also no practical leverage available to the courts if their funds are not stored in places subject to US jurisdiction. So, a minor backing for your claim, but one that is not in practice applied, nor considered relevant by precedent in regards to the XIVth.

I'm sorry you're being attacked so vociferously in this thread, as you are arguing in good faith with the knowledge you have, but your knowledge base is insufficient for the confidence you show.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#612

Post by remarkEon » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:18 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #604

remarkEon wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand your point. Is it that because Marco Rubio is Cuban I need to accept unlimited immigration, forever? This isn’t a position held by anyone in this administration, recent immigration history or not. My point is actually really narrow. The actual political movement with power and influence wishes to increase immigration to dilute the voice of the people already here, because the people already here do…

Because Marco Rubio is Cuban, you have to accept that dichotomy between "unlimited immigration forever" and "voice of a dozen generations" is false. The people in charge who you think agree with you do not agree; they're manipulating you for political convenience, and it's convenient for them for you to believe absolute nonsense so that nobody can reason with you. Nostalgia is a powerful force, so nobody will be able…

Huh? The administration that has an entire police force larger than the United States Marine Corps solely dedicated to immigration enforcement doesn’t agree with me that there is a problem with immigration diluting the voice of Americans already here. Okay. That’s certainly a take that one can have. You should just plainly state your point and preferred policy outcome because when you wrap it up in your moralizing (“I’d encourage you to think about [irrelevant point X]”) it obscures what you’re actually trying to say. I think it’s that this WH is engaged in a vast conspiracy to trick people into thinking that immigration is a policy priority when in fact it’s not. But this is obviously not true.

My point about 1999 has nothing to do with nostalgia. It has everything to do with absolutely no one asking for entire neighborhoods and towns to be turned into impenetrable foreign countries. There is a stark difference between immigration that brought people like Rubio here and mass migration from e.g. Somalia, in terms of scale, context, and timeframe.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#613

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

throwawaypath wrote: post #605

ceejayoz wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I get to cite losing cases, I can win any argument of this nature.

You don't get it: the case winning/losing is irrelevant to the argument being made.

If the actual final outcome doesn't matter, maybe your argument sucks.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#614

Post by insane_dreamer » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:27 PM UTC

factcheckr wrote: post #589

insane_dreamer wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

This exaggerated lie always gets posted, but it's entirely inaccurate. The Indians were nomadic hunter-gatherers who were sparsely distributed around the US and moved seasonally. Diseases killed the majority. Inter-tribal warfare was the second leading cause of death (tribes that had been fighting for generations with rocks and sticks got access to horses, steel blades and guns and became much more lethal) and deaths…

stop whitewashing it

yes, diseases killed the majority, but the diseases didn't come out of nowhere, they came from the European occupiers. and inter-tribal warfare killed plenty. but we're talking about theft of "available" land: the Europeans took the land from the remaining inhabitants, killing those who resisted, and deceiving those who submitted through treaties which they repeatedly broke, leaving the natives, by design, with the worst, most infertile land in the country

don't try to gloss it over and hand-wave it away -- yes, the natives were greatly diminished through the causes you mentioned, I never said the European occupiers killed them all, but it was genocide to finish them off and take all the land from anyone who resisted, effectively destroying their civilization

and stop calling them "settlers", they did not "settle" the land, they took it by force and deception

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#615

Post by busyant » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:42 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #593

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does mean you need to pretend that. Reagan has a famous quote about it. I mean, it's a free country, nobody can make you accept an idea you don't want to. But the nativist ideas you've adopted are not considered by most Americans to be acceptable. If you go around telling people that immigrants aren't real Americans, you will not be accepted even in many conservative circles. Even much of the Trump movement views…

You are wrong. My ideas aren't "nativist", they are the mean feeling on this subject for 250 years in this country. It has taken a tremendous amount of effort to convince people that things like "borders", "state sovereignty", and "being discerning about who you let into the country" is bad, evil even. That's why you think you can throw around the word "nativist" as a pejorative. I don't like Ronald Reagan for many r…

> if you think that it's good to dilute the voice of people whose families have been here for a dozen generations by pretending that people who got here 15 minutes ago have the same values that's fine.

That smacks of entitlement. Yes. I know that the other side of the argument also smacks of entitlement. But I believe I have the 14th amendment on my side.

Also, there are a lot of assumptions baked into your statement. If you think that everyone here who can trace their roots back "a dozen generations" has your ideals, well, I've got $24 worth of trinkets to sell you.

Conversely, if you think that everyone here who is newly immigrated does not share your ideals, well, I have more trinkets.

The Mythology of America that I bought into was that it was a welcoming place where you could re-invent yourself in a way that was rarely possible in the country your were leaving.

And yes. I know it's a mythology--with kernels of truth to it.

But you have your own Mythology--and I find it unpalatable, both to me and my immigrant parents.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#616

Post by Henchman21 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:43 PM UTC

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 mean, after decades of manufactured cultural rifts, we're right where the powers that be want us to be. Disorganized and ripe for exploitation.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#617

Post by dnemmers » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #574

MisterMower wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Members of American Indian tribes were born in the United States after the 14th amendment was passed but it took an act of Congress to make them citizens. The question of jurisdiction is a very real one that isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you’re implying it to be.

You're trying to impute complexity to a thing in order to achieve a goal that is not achievable. The 1866 Congress that debated the amendment understood and intended that Indian tribal nations would not be covered by the clause because they were separate nations not under the jurisdiction of US law . Here's an example of the debate [1] where they discuss it. Far from making your point, examples like this make it obvi…

Have you read through that link?

I'm not taking a side here, but it injects a couple more words that could imply something else:

[Mr. Howard] (Sen. from MI)

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory as what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

(Apologies for any typos as this was hand written.)

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#618

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #581

harimau777 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main point is that there isn't an epidemic of gatling gun crimes in America.

There isn’t an epidemic of any other gun crime, by the numbers.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/10/31/1209683...

> The U.S. has the 28th-highest rate of deaths from gun violence in the world: 4.31 deaths per 100,000 people in 2021. That was more than seven times as high as the rate in Canada, which had 0.57 deaths per 100,000 people — and about 340 times higher than in the United Kingdom, which had 0.013 deaths per 100,000.

https://everytownresearch.org/graph/the-u-s-gun-homicide-rat...

> The US gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26551975/

> US homicide rates were 7.0 times higher than in other high-income countries, driven by a gun homicide rate that was 25.2 times higher. For 15- to 24-year-olds, the gun homicide rate in the United States was 49.0 times higher. Firearm-related suicide rates were 8.0 times higher in the United States, but the overall suicide rates were average. Unintentional firearm deaths were 6.2 times higher in the United States. The overall firearm death rate in the United States from all causes was 10.0 times higher. Ninety percent of women, 91% of children aged 0 to 14 years, 92% of youth aged 15 to 24 years, and 82% of all people killed by firearms were from the United States.

We have more firearm homicides per capita than other prosperous countries have total homicides via all methods.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#619

Post by bediger4000 » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:49 PM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #476

bediger4000 wrote: post #138

This "broad conception" is pretty well documented as what Congress wanted at the time of passage of 14th Amendment. It's been considered "settled law" for ages. The only real reason it's come to SCOTUS is that a particular political faction wants it to, and the media gives that particular faction more credence, and more coverage. So there's two things here: 1. An artificially whipped-up "question". 2. Conservative bi…

The media in the US generally leans left (with a few notable exceptions).

This is a cherished American belief, but I don't think it's true after 2016, when NYT gave Trump a significant boost with their coverage of Clinton's emails, and continues to sanewash Trump, after 2024, when billionaires like Soon-Shiong and Bezoa personally directed their paper's editorial stance towards Harris, after Aksel Springer unveils a corporate conservative bias policy.

I think it's blatant now, but evidence suggests that "liberal bias" was never more than a partisan accusation.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#620

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Jul 01, 2026, 4:57 PM UTC

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #462

ceejayoz wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to doubt it. Reagan and the NRA were quite happy to regulate guns when the Black Panthers showed up with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Hint: If someone says "yeah sure manpads are fine" they're not some fox news boomer who adores Reagan.

It's still very much a phenomenon. Look how the NRA and GOP handled the Philando Castile case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Philando_Castile), for example. Suspicious silence, for the most part.