5 ms·

The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL mak

by xienze 1y ago

The second amendment is “very clearly” spelled out in the Constitution yet many roadblocks to gun ownership are thrown up in various states and people STILL make tired arguments about how the amendment “should” be interpreted. For example, the old argument that the founding fathers could have never conceived of AR-15s and thus their legality under the second amendment is debatable. Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. The amendment was quite obviously targeted at Native Americans and slaves, not any and all pregnant women the world over who manage to reach the US before giving birth. But as you’re noticing, there’s multiple ways people can interpret laws. It’s rarely as cut and dry as “this is obviously against the law!!!”

ceejayoz 1y ago
> Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend. Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would those kids be citizens, but their parents would have had little trouble staying around. We had very few rules beyond “don’t be Chinese” until 1891. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=...
- xienze 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    I argue it’s the logical conclusion for an era of “basically anyone can come here if they want”, yes. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
    - xienze 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        Again, until 1882-1891, reasons other than “you’re Chinese” didn’t exist in US immigration. We didn’t even bar felons or people with contagious diseases before that act. Pregnancy certainly wasn’t disqualifying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 > It imposed a head tax on non-citizens of the United States who came to American ports and restricted certain classes of people from immigrating to America, including criminals, the insane, or "any person unable to take care of him or herself." The act created what is recognized as the first federal immigration bureaucracy and laid the foundation for more regulations on immigration, such as the Immigration Act of 1891. The quotas you describe didn’t come until the 1920s. Well after the amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924?wprov=...
    - timr 1y ago
      > “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” So, I assume that you know that's a poem by someone who was engaged in pro-immigrant propaganda? And the entire reason that Lazarus was engaged in pro-immigrant propaganda was because she was advocating for Jewish refugees from Russia...who weren't exactly welcomed. Basically, your proposition that it was era of free immigration is historical revisionism. There's a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty where the primary purpose was finding reasons to turn immigrants away. (Castle Garden was established in the 1850s, and the history extends way before the nativist laws you're referring to in sibling comments [1]) [1] https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-history/ https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-histor...
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > There's a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty where the primary purpose was finding reasons to turn immigrants away. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Ellis Island was not opened until 1892. The shift in approach stems from laws in the 1880s and 1890s; again, decades after the 14th. The full timeline is quite conclusive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Legal_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_...
lelandbatey 1y ago
Indeed, how terrible! Those kids who then grow up in other countries outside the US will eventually be adults who have to pay taxes without sucking up any physical resources of said United States, whatever will we do about this huge drain on our resources? </sarcasm> Why am I supposed to be mad about people doing this, exactly? Because of hazy "rules are rules" talk?
ceejayoz 1y ago
> The amendment was quite obviously targeted at Native Americans and slaves… Just to return to this for a moment… this is quite incorrect. Native Americans were explicitly not included. That came later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... "Consistent with the views of the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard, the Supreme Court held that because Indian reservations are not under the federal government's jurisdiction, Native Americans born on such land are not entitled to birthright citizenship. The 1887 Dawes Act offered citizenship to Native Americans who accepted private property as part of cultural assimilation, while the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act offered citizenship to all Native Americans born within the nation's territorial limits." SCOTUS did rule on the anchor babies thing, in 1898. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

by xienze 1y ago

ceejayoz 1y ago

> Likewise, in 1868 the writers of the fourteenth amendment probably couldn’t conceive of rapid international travel and the possibility that pregnant women could just show up weeks before their due date and their newborn child should “obviously” be an American citizen. This is a better point than you realize, and in the opposite direction you intend. Immigration in the 1800s was a… cursory process. Not only would those kids be citizens, but their parents would have had little trouble staying around. We had very few rules beyond “don’t be Chinese” until 1891. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1891?wprov=...

xienze 1y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  I argue it’s the logical conclusion for an era of “basically anyone can come here if they want”, yes. “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.”
  - xienze 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Again, until 1882-1891, reasons other than “you’re Chinese” didn’t exist in US immigration. We didn’t even bar felons or people with contagious diseases before that act. Pregnancy certainly wasn’t disqualifying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 > It imposed a head tax on non-citizens of the United States who came to American ports and restricted certain classes of people from immigrating to America, including criminals, the insane, or "any person unable to take care of him or herself." The act created what is recognized as the first federal immigration bureaucracy and laid the foundation for more regulations on immigration, such as the Immigration Act of 1891. The quotas you describe didn’t come until the 1920s. Well after the amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924?wprov=...
  - timr 1y ago
    > “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” So, I assume that you know that's a poem by someone who was engaged in pro-immigrant propaganda? And the entire reason that Lazarus was engaged in pro-immigrant propaganda was because she was advocating for Jewish refugees from Russia...who weren't exactly welcomed. Basically, your proposition that it was era of free immigration is historical revisionism. There's a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty where the primary purpose was finding reasons to turn immigrants away. (Castle Garden was established in the 1850s, and the history extends way before the nativist laws you're referring to in sibling comments [1]) [1] https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-history/ https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-histor...
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > There's a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty where the primary purpose was finding reasons to turn immigrants away. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Ellis Island was not opened until 1892. The shift in approach stems from laws in the 1880s and 1890s; again, decades after the 14th. The full timeline is quite conclusive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Legal_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_...

lelandbatey 1y ago

Indeed, how terrible! Those kids who then grow up in other countries outside the US will eventually be adults who have to pay taxes without sucking up any physical resources of said United States, whatever will we do about this huge drain on our resources? </sarcasm> Why am I supposed to be mad about people doing this, exactly? Because of hazy "rules are rules" talk?

ceejayoz 1y ago

> The amendment was quite obviously targeted at Native Americans and slaves… Just to return to this for a moment… this is quite incorrect. Native Americans were explicitly not included. That came later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un... "Consistent with the views of the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard, the Supreme Court held that because Indian reservations are not under the federal government's jurisdiction, Native Americans born on such land are not entitled to birthright citizenship. The 1887 Dawes Act offered citizenship to Native Americans who accepted private property as part of cultural assimilation, while the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act offered citizenship to all Native Americans born within the nation's territorial limits." SCOTUS did rule on the anchor babies thing, in 1898. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark