3 ms·

> 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 ad

> 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_...

timr 1y ago
> Ellis Island was not opened until 1892. Nope. Wrong. That's the new facility. Castle Garden started in the 1850s: https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-history/ https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-histor... > The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Yes, and? I'm not debating the legality of whatever the current administration is doing. I'm just telling you that you have the history wrong, and that there's a deep irony in quoting Lazarus as some kind of "good old days", when she wrote the poem as a form of advocacy for immigrants.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > Nope. Wrong. That's the new facility. Castle Garden started in the 1850s That's not "a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty" (it's in Battery Park, Manhattan), and performed a significantly different role. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 "restricted certain classes of people from immigrating to America, including criminals, the insane, or 'any person unable to take care of him or herself.'… [creating] what is recognized as the first federal immigration bureaucracy and laid the foundation for more regulations on immigration" The 14th Amendment, having been approved decades before we had that first of immigration laws on the books, was approved in a historical context where "illegal immigration" was essentially not a thing. > I'm not debating the legality of whatever the current administration is doing. Perhaps don't jump into a thread about the legal basis of it, then. This particular bit is discussing the claim made at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44400640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44400640, where another user claims the drafters of the Amendment would've opposed "anchor babies".
  - timr 1y ago
    Yes, I got the exact island mixed up. Not really relevant to my point.

timr 1y ago

> Ellis Island was not opened until 1892. Nope. Wrong. That's the new facility. Castle Garden started in the 1850s: https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-history/ https://www.statueofliberty.org/ellis-island/overview-histor... > The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Yes, and? I'm not debating the legality of whatever the current administration is doing. I'm just telling you that you have the history wrong, and that there's a deep irony in quoting Lazarus as some kind of "good old days", when she wrote the poem as a form of advocacy for immigrants.

ceejayoz 1y ago
> Nope. Wrong. That's the new facility. Castle Garden started in the 1850s That's not "a whole island out in front of the Statue of Liberty" (it's in Battery Park, Manhattan), and performed a significantly different role. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1882 "restricted certain classes of people from immigrating to America, including criminals, the insane, or 'any person unable to take care of him or herself.'… [creating] what is recognized as the first federal immigration bureaucracy and laid the foundation for more regulations on immigration" The 14th Amendment, having been approved decades before we had that first of immigration laws on the books, was approved in a historical context where "illegal immigration" was essentially not a thing. > I'm not debating the legality of whatever the current administration is doing. Perhaps don't jump into a thread about the legal basis of it, then. This particular bit is discussing the claim made at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44400640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44400640, where another user claims the drafters of the Amendment would've opposed "anchor babies".
- timr 1y ago
  Yes, I got the exact island mixed up. Not really relevant to my point.