You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

Umbra ,

Lol, what a ridiculous headline. Fundamental??

hoodatninja ,
@hoodatninja@kbin.social avatar

Well, yes. Naturalization has been there from the beginning and "Birthright Citizenship" as we currently know it was solidified during reconstruction. So yeah, it's pretty fundamental to who we are as a nation. It's responsible for who we are as a nation. Quite literally, in fact.

spaceghoti OP ,

FTA:

After the Civil War, Congress overrode the veto of then-President Andrew Johnson to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which declared people “of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude” who are born in the United States to be citizens.

Sounds pretty fundamental to me.

Umbra ,

More Like utterly irrelevant for over 150 years

spaceghoti OP ,

The principle, enshrined into law in 1866, has granted citizenship to countless people for over two hundred years. How do you get “irrelevant” from that?

Umbra ,

That's not what its purpose was.

spaceghoti OP ,

Several hundred years of legal precedent disagree with you. Please tell me, since you know better: what was its “true” purpose?

Umbra ,

Its purpose was to grant former slaves citizenship.

BraveSirZaphod ,
@BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social avatar

So weird they forgot to add in a "born in the United States before 1865" clause if that's what they meant. What a bunch of dummies!

spaceghoti OP ,

It can’t possibly have had more than one purpose? Especially given the broad language used that explicitly covered all people born here?

This is a truly extraordinary insight. Who knows how many judges have been ruling incorrectly, and here you come clarifying it for us all! Truly, you are a gift to us all.

TheKingBee ,
@TheKingBee@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah that broad language didn’t cover native Americans…

I’m not saying it’s irrelevant like they’re arguing but it’s not as fundamental as your arguing either…

America has broadly worded laws like this not because we’re progressive but because our founders were so fundamentally racist that they literally didn’t think about brown people or women as people and so these laws would never apply to them…

www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/

spaceghoti OP ,

The fact that it’s been enforced selectively doesn’t invalidate it. It just means there’s room (and reason!) to improve.

TheKingBee ,
@TheKingBee@lemmy.world avatar

Not arguing that just saying that the selective enforcement kind of proves it’s not as fundamental as you’re arguing it is…

spaceghoti OP ,

Freedom of speech is also a fundamental principle of our nation, but it’s also selectively enforced. I don’t think your argument refutes mine as well as you think.

hoodatninja ,
@hoodatninja@kbin.social avatar

Pretty sure the courts decide that and, so far, they've decided it's pretty dang relevant.

TheBat ,
@TheBat@lemmy.world avatar

Just like second amendment?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •