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?
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.
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…
Would 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.
More Like utterly irrelevant for over 150 years
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?
That’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?
Its purpose was to grant former slaves citizenship.
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!
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.
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…
https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/
The fact that it’s been enforced selectively doesn’t invalidate it. It just means there’s room (and reason!) to improve.
Not arguing that just saying that the selective enforcement kind of proves it’s not as fundamental as you’re arguing it is…
You are too kind :*
Pretty sure the courts decide that and, so far, they’ve decided it’s pretty dang relevant.
Would 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.
No, the only point of birthright citizenship was to grant former slaves citizenship. That’s not a founding anything
Just like second amendment?