Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 7 months ago, 3 days later[^][v]#1,375,218
Historically (based on United States v. Wong Kim Ark) it seems to have been intended to exclude the children of foreign ambassadors, even if born on US soil. On a textual basis I could also see it being interpreted as "must not be an illegal immigrant", as their presence is by definition not authorized by the US' jurisdiction. However, were that the case, I would expect it to have been clarified as such long ago, and it would be irrelevant to birthright citizenship anyways, since the US-born children of illegal immigrants are not themselves immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
boof joined in and replied with this 7 months ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,375,247
it always seems like an asshole move to kick some guy out who's well into adulthood and never even been anywhere else in his life, can't speak the language, and the land doesn't even have anything you would call a good government
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 7 months ago, 7 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,375,275
@1,375,218 (B)
It was clarified a long time ago. Two years after the 14th amendment passed, the senate judicial committee declared that the intent was to remove any language referring to "three fifths of a person". End of story.
> Historically (based on United States v. Wong Kim Ark) it seems to have been intended to exclude the children of foreign ambassadors, even if born on US soil. On a textual basis I could also see it being interpreted as "must not be an illegal immigrant", as their presence is by definition not authorized by the US' jurisdiction. However, were that the case, I would expect it to have been clarified as such long ago, and it would be irrelevant to birthright citizenship anyways, since the US-born children of illegal immigrants are not themselves immigrants, illegal or otherwise.
AI Overview
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of birthright citizenship in the United States. The case affirmed that anyone born within the U.S., regardless of the parents' citizenship, is a U.S. citizen. This ruling is based on the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Anonymous B replied with this 7 months ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,375,306
@1,375,275 (G)
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment does that, but it's Section 1 that contains the Citizenship Clause. One could say that Section 2 is support for Section 1 (since "any person" could be argued not to include those who are legally considered three-fifths of a person), but not the reverse, since Congressional representation is based on "persons", not specifically citizens. So the definition of citizenship seems to be a separate intent from overturning the Three-Fifths Compromise.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 7 months ago, 48 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#1,375,307
People are really arguing over the constitution like the government cares what the outcome of this debate is. They’re just gonna do whatever they’re gonna do and there’s nothing we can do about it. If they’re nice they’ll follow the paper, but if they don’t, then… well… that’s just how it be.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 months ago, 1 week later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#1,377,058
@1,375,218 (B)
The intent was to clarify that descendents of slaves were citizens. Anything else was an unintentional byproduct.
By the way, that case happened 30 years after the original ratification. If it was so obvious Chinamen were included then why did it take 30 years for the courts to affirm it?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 42 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#1,377,064
@previous (A)
You know what? Screw it. You like racism? I can be way more racist than you. How about blacks, whites, Chinese, Indians, how about every race can’t be a citizen of the United States and we make a squirrel president?
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 34 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#1,377,124
@previous (A) > If it was so obvious Chinamen were included > implying that it's obvious that "Chinamen" weren't meant to be included > "Chinamen" in 2025
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 6 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#1,377,136
@previous (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
Racism is prejudice towards a racial, ethnic, or national group. I bear no ill will or preconceptions to the Chinese, nor men.
If you aren't familiar with US history, slavery in the country was done against African peoples. The 14th amendment was intended to grant those people, when born on US soil, citizenship and the rights that come with it.
There's nothing racist about pointing out that men from China were not the intended recipients of this, because they did not suffer from the same abuses.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 6 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#1,377,161
@1,377,136 (A)
Have you read about how the railroads were built in the US? Try looking into that if you don't think Chinese immigrants and their descendants were mistreated. The 14th amendment doesn't make any references to slavery so I don't know where you got that from.
> I bear no ill will or preconceptions to the Chinese, nor men.
I believe that you believe this because frankly you're too ignorant and lacking in reflection to realise otherwise. Also, ill-will is not a requisite. "Benevolent racism" is a thing - "Asians are all good at math", model minority myths, etc.
Honestly just get some basic critical thinking skills before trying to educate others.
Chinese do tend to be good at math, because their schooling system emphasizes it and they learn more advanced systems at an earlier age, as well as have a culture of extreme academic expectations.
TheRealSakawaBoyGenius joined in and replied with this 6 months ago, 2 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#1,377,214
@1,377,162 (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
I’ve also heard from Chinese people that if you’re not a native English speaker it tends to be the easiest subject in school. One thing I’ve noticed about Asians though is even though white people constantly (and often times surprisingly casually) make remarks about Asians being smart or Asians deserving to go to college more than blacks because blacks have a "bad culture" or are "unqualified" or are "DEI" or (if you get a particularly brazen white nationalist), because "Asians are biologically determined to have a high IQ and blacks have low IQs," I’ve never really met any Asians who thought that. Even once I got to university and a lot of the Asians aren’t even Asian American, they’re actually Chinese people from China, I haven’t ever encountered Asian people who think I’m stupid because I’m black. There have been other problems, but that seems to be a belief that isn’t very common with Asians ironically.
TheRealSakawaBoyGenius double-posted this 6 months ago, 3 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#1,377,215
I think it’s also a mistake to believe that white Americans say Asians are smart because white Americans think being smart is a good thing. In my experience that was more a stereotype in school for people to say that all Asians are nerds or all Asian guys are gay.
> Racism is prejudice towards a racial, ethnic, or national group. I bear no ill will or preconceptions to the Chinese, nor men. > > If you aren't familiar with US history, slavery in the country was done against African peoples. The 14th amendment was intended to grant those people, when born on US soil, citizenship and the rights that come with it. > > There's nothing racist about pointing out that men from China were not the intended recipients of this, because they did not suffer from the same abuses.
anyone born within the U.S., regardless of the parents' citizenship, is a U.S. citizen.
Anonymous O replied with this 6 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#1,377,217
@previous (H)
Racism is just lies people tell themselves to justify hurting other people. He does not care about logic no matter how obvious you make it.
Anonymous O double-posted this 6 months ago, 54 seconds later, 2 weeks after the original post[^][v]#1,377,218
Although, if it says anyone can be a citizen, and he’s saying it doesn’t apply to the Chinese, that sorta implies he doesn’t think the Chinese are people.