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

641–650 of 681 posts

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#641

Post by lazide »

ceejayoz wrote: post #636
lazide wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reference to the ‘no epidemic of Gatling gun crime’ comment, yes. What other epidemic of a specific type of gun crime is there, exactly? (And no, entire categories like ‘hand gun’ don’t count)

> entire categories like ‘hand gun’ don’t count How convenient for your argument! Why not? You aren't concerned that our murder rate is seven times that of other OECD nations, and 25x when limited to firearms?

Because words have meaning, and ‘handgun’ can mean anything from a muzzle loading musket to a literal MAC-10 that can fire 1800 rounds per minute.

And if you can’t understand or articulate what is going on, then good luck doing anything about it?

I provided a concise term that actually has a concrete meaning. That is the thread we are in.

Care to join? Or do you want to scream incoherently into the void more?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#642

Post by matthewdgreen »

dnemmers wrote: post #632
matthewdgreen wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I kept reading pages, and there's plenty of other questionable conclusions: [Mr. Conness] (Sen. CA) (Acclaimed for his pro-Chinese immigration views. Wiki: "In the Senate debate on the 14th Amendment, Conness said “We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children begotten of Chinese parents in California … shall be citizens.” from the link: "Now, I will say, f…

There's nothing terribly confusing here. In fact it's a helpful set of quotes. This is one Senator saying "hey, second-generation Chinese immigrants will be citizens. And that's fine because I don't think there will be too many of them."

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#643

Post by matthewdgreen »

dnemmers wrote: post #617
matthewdgreen wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What are the confusing words? You gave a quote that sums up the long-accepted understanding of who's exempt from the citizenship clause:

"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."

They don't mention Indian tribes in that quote, but they mention it elsewhere. Seems completely clear to me.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#644

Post by onetimeusename »

malicka wrote: post #639
onetimeusename wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's obvious. Like why do you think the dissenters are wrong to question what is meant about being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? The intention was to prevent former slaves from being deprived of citizenship so what is an argument to say this obviously includes someone who arrives for birth tourism? Why doesn't this include children of diplomats, as one example, if it's such an all encompassing…

Because when you are in a country, you are subject to it’s jurisdiction. Can you be arrested for petty crimes? Yes? Then you’re under that country’s jurisdiction.

That's what the justices said. That has generally been how modern courts interpret it, with a textualist interpretation. But that was not the original intention of the law which I already stated. So to go back to my original point, it's not an obvious conclusion.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#645

Post by ceejayoz »

lazide wrote: post #641
ceejayoz wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> entire categories like ‘hand gun’ don’t count How convenient for your argument! Why not? You aren't concerned that our murder rate is seven times that of other OECD nations, and 25x when limited to firearms?

Because words have meaning, and ‘handgun’ can mean anything from a muzzle loading musket to a literal MAC-10 that can fire 1800 rounds per minute. And if you can’t understand or articulate what is going on, then good luck doing anything about it? I provided a concise term that actually has a concrete meaning. That is the thread we are in. Care to join? Or do you want to scream incoherently into the void more?

> Because words have meaning, and ‘handgun’ can mean anything from a muzzle loading musket to a literal MAC-10 that can fire 1800 rounds per minute.

Yes, that's what this thread's about. You argued Gatling guns being legal makes gun control overall silly; someone else noted that the theoetical regulatory gap exists because in practice no one uses Gatling guns in crimes.

> And if you can’t understand or articulate what is going on, then good luck doing anything about it?

I think 25x the gun homicide rate effectively articulates what's going on. Do you disagree?

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#646

Post by TheCoelacanth »

rayiner wrote: post #365
throw0101d wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] children of diplomats aren't citizens at birth, but U.S. courts have jurisdiction over diplomats for some activities? AIUI, IANAL, US courts and law do not have jurisdiction over diplomats. When a diplomat the 'hosting' government agrees to immunity, so cannot be prosecuted. E.g.: > The collision caused diplomatic tension between British and US officials. [Anne] Sacoolas fled Britain soon after the incident, an…

Incorrect: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diplomatic_immunity U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over diplomats for certain things, such as suits related to commercial activities.

That's more like having jurisdiction over the diplomat's property in the country than having jurisdiction over the diplomat themselves.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#647

Post by rayiner »

coldtea wrote: post #595
rayiner wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> You’re complaining about where the founders didn’t follow their principles to their logical conclusions. But you overlook that you’re using the founders’ own principles to criticize how they fell short Which is irrelevant, since it's not their influence on modern principles and their related concepts that's in question, but to whether "a constitution interpreted precisely as written by wealthy, landed 18th century…

> it's not their influence on modern principles and their related concepts that's in question

No, that’s exactly the question. You’re saying that the constitution protects non-white people less because it was written by white people. The logical follow-up is to ask what the constitution would look like if it had been written by non-white people. That would solve the problem, right? In that scenario, people would share more “in common” with the hypothetical non-white framers, right? That would mean they would be more enfranchised, right?

For example, what if the framers had been Bangladeshis like me? Under your logic, I’d be more enfranchised by such a constitution, because I share more “in common” with those hypothetical Bangladeshi framers. But in reality, I’d be less franchised! Because we had no indigenous notions of democracy, civil rights, due process, free speech, etc. I’m actually better off that the framers were white British people than I would have been if the framers had been my own ancestors! Similarly, what if the constitution had been written by people from west africa? The people enslaved during the founding would have been enslaved under that constitution as well!

So the original premise is false. If you’re Asian, or African, or Middle Eastern, you wouldn’t be more franchised in a counterfactual scenario where your ancestors wrote the constitution according to the precepts that prevailed in your own ancestral lands.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#648

Post by MisterMower »

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…

Can you link to the portion of the debate where everyone agreed on what “under the jurisdiction of” means?

The issue was contentious then as it is now. They wouldn’t have spilled so much ink on the topic if it wasn’t. Your link is proving my point.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#649

Post by skulk »

mothballed wrote: post #635
skulk wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're fixating on the word deserve in my post, but that's got nothing to do with my point. I'm saying that the market has decided that it doesn't have to pay a living wage since the government picks up the bill to keep things going. I think that's perverse.

I'm confused whether you want more welfare, or you're trying to ban jobs below a certain "living" wage floor (which are probably mostly occupied by the poorer). There is a somewhat intermediate of this, proposed by Milton Friedman, called the negative income tax. I can't say I'm sold on the idea but it does solve some of the problems of the local maximums encountered that keep people trapped in the welfare system and…

Probably some mixture of better statutory labor protections and more class solidarity (collective bargaining), but generally I don't know. It just boils my blood that Walmart can publish a document explaining to its employees how to apply for government food assistance (to buy food from Walmart itself) and this is business-as-usual in the USA.

Re: Supreme Court upholds broad conception of birthright citizenship

#650

Post by solid_fuel »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #381
erxam wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why are you being so rude? Please don't put words in my mouth, that is nothing like what I believe. My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910. Were they literally Hitler also?

People are being rude because you're being a dumbass.

> My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910.

The question of birthright citizenship was settled law for 40 years by the 1910s, so this is - unsurprisingly - a lie.

Post reply on HN