4 ms·

Well 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 ago
Help 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 ago
  From 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 ago
    You’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 ago
      8 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.

rayiner 8mo ago

Help 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 ago
From 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 ago
  You’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 ago
    8 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.