408
Republican group cites Dred Scott ruling as reason Kamala Harris can’t be president
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
408 points (97.2% liked)
politics
18870 readers
3730 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They would actually have to show at every point in their genealogical history, every single ancestor, going back to the founding of the country, was a citizen. If even one of their ancestors was an immigrant, then every child descended from them is not a natural born citizen.
So... wait, so only Native Americans can be President?
Maybe we should let them have this one. It would be interesting, at least.
According to them a natural born citizen can be born to naturalized immigrant parents.
Note that Donald Trump's mother was born in Scotland but naturalized before Donald was born.
And Baron Trump has an immigrant mother.
An illegal immigrant, pornstar, parent.
Good point, the more I think about this the more absurd it gets. A handful of white xenophobes want to inadvertantly make 2nd generation Somali and 3rd generation Hmong the only truly legitimate citizens in America, shit is cracking me up
That's not true. An immigrant can be a naturalized citizen and then bear offspring with another US citizen. The immigrant is not natural horn but their child is.
You are correct that children of immigrant ancestors who are naturalized citizens would be citizens, I acknowledge my error here.
But there is still a major issue with this. Say a US citizen marries and has a child with an immigrant (non-naturalized). I assume this is not at all uncommon in our nation's history, but I don't know any statistics on it. Anyway, as far as anyone at the time is concerned, that child is a natural born citizen because they were born in the USA (birthright citizenship) to an American citizen. Those are the rules as I understand them. Since the child is already considered a natural born citizen, they would not go on to be naturalized.
This group is claiming that "a natural-born citizen has to be born in the US to parents who are citizens when the child is born" though. That means that the child in my example is not a natural born citizen by this group's rules. If this group's interpretation prevails, then that child, who obviously would not go on to be naturalized, was not really a citizen at all because one of their parents was not naturalized.
That further means, again by this group's logic, any decedents from such a union would also not really be citizens because none of their children would go on to be naturalized before having children of their own. Any US citizen with an ancestor who was born to a non-naturalized immigrant (at the time of birth) is not actually a natural born citizen.
I would imagine a huge fraction of American citizens would fall into this category because of some ancestor being born to a non-naturalized immigrant and a citizen parent. I have no idea how one would determine what that fraction is though.
If you are born in the USA, your parent's citizenship is irrelevant. Have you ever heard the term "anchor baby"? Also, if one of your parents is a US Citizen then you are a US Citizen no matter where you were born. (There are some refinements to this that have changed over the years regarding how much time the parent has lived in the US) That's what made the Obama thing so stupid
it doesn't matter if he was born overseas, he'd still be a US citizen via his mother.
Correct. This group is arguing against that and claiming one is not a citizen unless *both *parents are current US citizens. I'm pointing out the flaws in their argument.
If this was the law, I'm not sure why you assume that these non-citizens would not get naturalized? My family moved to the US when I was young and I became a naturalized citizen when I was in college.
I don't know why you think no one would get naturalized in this scenario?
To be clear, I am arguing from the bizarre positions of the group in the posted article. I'm not agreeing with the group, just trying to point out some of the fallout should this group get their arguments before SCOTUS and win.
For the sake of argument, let's say your parents had moved to the states before you were born. Since you would have been born in the states, you would have had birthright citizenship according to the 14th Amendment. Why would you then go through the process to become a naturalized citizen if you already had birthright citizenship? You wouldn't, of course. This group is trying to argue that as a child of immigrants, you would not be a citizen just based on being born in the USA. Your own children in this scenario would not be citizens either since you would not have gone on to be naturalized and would not be a citizen yourself.
This group's position is that anyone not born of two US citizens (at the time of birth) is not a US citizen. Neither, therefore, are their decedents because no one who thinks they are already a citizen would go out and get naturalized.
I don't think that's required by their argument at all, merely that both parents be citizens (by birth or naturalized) when the child is born (this is stricter than is normally used, but is not ridiculously impossible to demonstrate like your suggestion). Them inventing this new definition and wanting to apply it to Kamala is just plain racism though.
I acknowledge my error but see my reply here. There are, I think, some major issues with the reasoning.
https://lemmy.world/comment/11995442