“The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weaker than its connection with members of Indian tribes. If the latter link is insufficient for birthright citizenship, the former certainly is,” the Trump administration argued.
Everything they are saying about Native Americans is to support their argument against immigrants.
The United States’ connection with the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors is weak…
I don’t accept this. The people who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” are agents of, or in the service of foreign governments. Like diplomats, spies, or soldiers in an invading army. People following the orders of foreign governments. People paid by foreign governments to be in the US. The US connection to the children of these foreign agents is weaker than the US connection to Native American tribes. The children of these agents don’t have a claim to citizenship under the 14th amendment.
BUt Private individuals who choose to come to the US are not acting under orders from a foreign government. They come here - legally or illegally - under their own volition. In doing so, they directly subject themselves to US law, which means that their children born in the US fall under the 14th Amendment.
Pretty sure the documentary I saw and the person they spoke to preferred “Indians” but it’s not like 1 tribe speaks for all of them? You probably should do some research before you sound like my grandpa without his hearing aids, yelling about the “orientals” and embarrassing the fuck out of me.
I have heard different people from that group of humans say they prefer one or the other for different reasons. (A friend of mine once said, “I go with Indian because it doesn’t matter since either name is just one white people gave us.”)
I tend to go with ‘indigenous Americans’ because ‘indigenous’ is a word used for such peoples all over the planet and generally is difficult to argue against as an inoffensive and descriptive term.
This is pretty off topic but I’ve been wondering: how far back in the past do you stop before considering people indigenous? For example, my family immigrated to America from Europe about 200 years ago. Does that mean I’m native to europe? Indians are believed to have come from Russia through Alaska thousands of years ago. Does that mean they’re indigenous to Russia? If you go back far enough, we’re all from Africa.
Technically you are correct the best kind of correct. I also enjoy how the stopped clock is absolutely correct twice a day while a “working” clock is never absolutely correct.
By “Indians” here they mean Native Americans. O_o
Everything they are saying about Native Americans is to support their argument against immigrants.
I don’t accept this. The people who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” are agents of, or in the service of foreign governments. Like diplomats, spies, or soldiers in an invading army. People following the orders of foreign governments. People paid by foreign governments to be in the US. The US connection to the children of these foreign agents is weaker than the US connection to Native American tribes. The children of these agents don’t have a claim to citizenship under the 14th amendment.
BUt Private individuals who choose to come to the US are not acting under orders from a foreign government. They come here - legally or illegally - under their own volition. In doing so, they directly subject themselves to US law, which means that their children born in the US fall under the 14th Amendment.
It’s likely to justify immediately instituting openly apartheid laws. And the illegitimate Supreme Court will go along with it for this exact purpose.
Exactly.
I thought they found native Americans label offensive now?
I have no idea, but I expect it’s better than “Indians”.
Pretty sure the documentary I saw and the person they spoke to preferred “Indians” but it’s not like 1 tribe speaks for all of them? You probably should do some research before you sound like my grandpa without his hearing aids, yelling about the “orientals” and embarrassing the fuck out of me.
I have heard different people from that group of humans say they prefer one or the other for different reasons. (A friend of mine once said, “I go with Indian because it doesn’t matter since either name is just one white people gave us.”)
I tend to go with ‘indigenous Americans’ because ‘indigenous’ is a word used for such peoples all over the planet and generally is difficult to argue against as an inoffensive and descriptive term.
This is pretty off topic but I’ve been wondering: how far back in the past do you stop before considering people indigenous? For example, my family immigrated to America from Europe about 200 years ago. Does that mean I’m native to europe? Indians are believed to have come from Russia through Alaska thousands of years ago. Does that mean they’re indigenous to Russia? If you go back far enough, we’re all from Africa.
“Indigenous” generally means “pre-colonial.” As in they didn’t forcibly take over the land from someone else as far as we know.
That’s a good way to define it, thanks.
I’m just naturally assuming Trump quoting language from the 1800s is going to be offensive to somebody…
A broken clock is correct twice a day. Never let your bias cloud your vision, your judgement, and reality.
a stopped clock might be right twice a day but a broken clock might never be right depending on how broken it is.
Technically you are correct the best kind of correct. I also enjoy how the stopped clock is absolutely correct twice a day while a “working” clock is never absolutely correct.
how broken is the clock though?