• spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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/

      • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • TheKingBee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • spaceghoti@lemmy.oneOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.