General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am reading a book about Chinese immigrants in the late 1800's.
Back then Congress had passed the Exclusion Act to discourage Chinese immigration.
It was a very bad law. Basically Chinese immigrants could never become citizens. In some cases they could be put in jail just for existing.
Some of what was in the Exclusion Act is what Trump is doing now. His plan is to exclude black and brown immigrants.
The right wants to get rid of the 14th Amendment so that children of immigrants born here are no longer citizens.
With Kavanaugh maybe there will be another Exclusion Act.
Hekate
(90,704 posts)History makes a grand and disturbing read. We choose our narratives. My narrative has always been that we struggle toward the light, often failing, always moving forward bit by bit, and that the Constitution is a living document each generation is called upon to reinterpret.
Oh brother are there lessons there, and some of them very dark. This is one of those times when the darkness has us by the ankle.
pretzel4gore
(8,146 posts)the way ' white' women were beguiled by wonderful dope. ..which was actually readily available but....very little written about the social aspects of drug use, but the phenomena developed at least partly in defiance of the strict ness/racism and oboredom stigmas of being a square. ..and the fact laudanum etc were sold over the counter until drug war was started- and criminalizing the biz just added cachet which made it a losing proposition right off!
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Whether they could pull it off is something else.
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Truly.
Guppy
(444 posts)My Grandfather was born in CA in the 1890's. He went back to China in the late teen's. He only got back because he had papers. His dad tried to sell the papers. On my other side my Grandfather jumped the boat around 1910. His wife (German) was arrested in Illinois for cavorting with Chinese people. I have the newspaper article.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...which arose from those very circumstances:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clausenamely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to at least some children born of foreigners because they were born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli). The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign powerthat is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".
The right would like to overturn this case and adopt the minority position.
dalton99a
(81,512 posts)As a result of his unequal status, Wong eventually turned his back on the United States. He married and had four sons, but they remained in China. Eventually, Wong retired to China at the age of 62 and never returned to the United States. He died in China shortly after World War II.
As Americans consider the proposal to end birthright citizenship and the candidates who support it, they should also remember Wong Kim Ark and the price he paid so that future generations could enjoy the rights and privileges of birthright citizenship.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/erika-lee-immigration-history-lesson-donald-trump-article-1.2329495