CAPSLOCKFTW ( @CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml ) English34•1 year agoBecause they’re racist.
toothpaste_sandwich ( @toothpaste_sandwich@feddit.nl ) English6•1 year agoDing ding ding ding ding!
Jordan Lund ( @jordanlund@lemmy.one ) English6•1 year agoBecause they want to control who is able to vote.
shawnshitshow ( @shawnshitshow@sopuli.xyz ) English5•1 year agomany of my conservative coworkers and family members genuinely believe there is some conspiracy led by George Soros et. al. to bring tons of brown people across our border to have “anchor babies” and further liberalize our country.
if that is what you believe, of course ending birthright citizenship sounds like a great solution
Xariphon ( @Xariphon@kbin.social ) 2•1 year agoBecause the fewer people there are who can vote, the fewer people there are voting against them while their lunatic cult shows up every time. Exclusion and cheating are the only way they’ve won an election in living memory.
Umbra ( @Umbra@kbin.social ) 2•1 year agoLol, what a ridiculous headline. Fundamental??
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 ( @Umbra@kbin.social ) 2•1 year agoMore Like utterly irrelevant for over 150 years
hoodatninja ( @hoodatninja@kbin.social ) 3•1 year agoPretty sure the courts decide that and, so far, they’ve decided it’s pretty dang relevant.
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 ( @Umbra@kbin.social ) 1•1 year agoThat’s not what its purpose was.
Several hundred years of legal precedent disagree with you. Please tell me, since you know better: what was its “true” purpose?
Umbra ( @Umbra@kbin.social ) 1•1 year agoIts purpose was to grant former slaves citizenship.
BraveSirZaphod ( @BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social ) 3•1 year agoSo 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!
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.
Bumblefumble ( @Bumblefumble@beehaw.org ) 2•1 year agoWould you say that about everything in the constitution then? The second amendment? I mean if something is so ingrained in the nation historically, it’s hard to dismiss that just because you dislike it.
Umbra ( @Umbra@kbin.social ) 1•1 year agoNo, the only point of birthright citizenship was to grant former slaves citizenship. That’s not a founding anything
hoodatninja ( @hoodatninja@kbin.social ) 5•1 year agoWell, 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.