5 ms·
> Causes for denaturalization under the 1906 Act included fraud, racial ineligibility and lack of “good moral character.” And case law concerning this law, Oza
by cherry_tree 8mo ago
> Causes for denaturalization under the 1906 Act included fraud, racial ineligibility and lack of “good moral character.”
And case law concerning this law, Ozawa vs United States:
> The decision goes on to deny that the common population could construe Ozawa, a man of Japanese descent, as white (thus, making him ineligible under section 2169 of the Revised Statutes of the United States).[9] Thus he could not be naturalized, under the current laws, in 1922.
Yeah, the article is the misleading one. Sure bud. Thanks for coming here to defend racism as a basis for citizenship.
- rayiner 8mo agoHelp me see the connection. The government can't denaturalize someone based on racial classifications. Does that mean it can't denaturalize people for any other reason?
- Larrikin 8mo agoYou're citing a law based in racism as being perfectly fine to use in the year 2026 because racists previously made it a law.
- rayiner 8mo agoHow is denaturalizing people for lying on immigration documents "based in racism?" Canada as well, and in Sweden, France, Germany, etc., have the same law. It makes no sense to say the law shouldn't be enforced simply because a different part of that law was struck down as being unconstitutional.
- cherry_tree 8mo agoWell they were lying about being white right? Since that’s an eligibility criteria setup by the 1906 law you are here to defend.
- rayiner 8mo agoHelp me understand your logic. Because the law had one invalid eligibility criterion in 1906 means we can’t enforce the law against people who lie about other things?
- cherry_tree 8mo agoFrom 1906 to 1952 the eligibility criteria for naturalization included exceptions for fraud and for race. You are here to say “that’s a good law actually, because fraud is bad. So we should enforce this law and retroactively denaturalize those who didn’t meet the criteria at the time.” You act confused when people tell you this is stupid and racist. Help me understand your logic.
- rayiner 8mo agoYou’re confused about what the law says. The current law, * USC 1451, was enacted in 1952, and it says you can denaturalize people for lying on their immigration paperwork. The current law has nothing to do with race, and Canada, Sweden, Germany, etc., have similar provisions. You’re talking about a different provision of the law that hasn’t been in effect for 74 years. Nobody is talking about enforcing that provision.
- cherry_tree 8mo ago8 USC 1451 >It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured It would have been illegal for, as a random example, a Bangladeshi immigrant to become a citizen until 1952. As in that citizenship was illegally procured. So I’ll ask you directly, should we use these two laws to denaturalize everyone who, as you put it, “committed fraud”? And what of the children of these “fraudsters”, why should they inherit citizenship from someone who never had it legally? You are the one willfully misunderstanding the things you yourself are quoting. > Nobody is talking about enforcing that provision. You are. You brought up this 1906 law. You are defending its use today to denaturalize citizens.
- OutOfHere 8mo agoIt is selective enforcement of the law that is grounded in racism, only in the USA.
- metalcrow 8mo agoThat is literally the way laws work. Laws don't have moral statuses attached in them, we prescribe that to them as citizens. It would be wrong for this law to be enforced, and it should be revoked, but from a state perspective and a legal perspective, it IS "perfectly fine".
- rayiner 8mo agoThere is nothing morally wrong with the law either. It's morally irrelevant that it used to be in the same code provision as another law that was based on a racial classification. The law we're talking about today doesn't do that. And I would be surprised if any developed country doesn't have a similar law. Canada does, for example: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/helpcentre/glossary.html#misrepresentation https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/he...
- cherry_tree 8mo agoUnder the law you are suggesting is a just and legitimate basis for denaturalization, any non-white person naturalized before 1952 can be denaturalized, as they were committing fraud claiming to be white to be eligible for naturalization at the time. I don’t have to be super imaginative to extend that to wondering how those people’s children could have inherited citizenship from a noncitizen who committed fraud against the US government. But we’re all just trying to get back to “law and order” here right? What a stupid person you’d have to be to believe that.