| |
| ▲ | traderj0e an hour ago | parent [-] | | USA was founded well after the Pilgrims. I don't think anyone in 1776, or even in the Pilgrim days, was thinking a foreigner should have the right to vote for instance. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | After the Revolutionary War, most US citizens couldn't vote. I don't think we should be using that time period for comparison. | |
| ▲ | Peritract an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who else didn't they think should have the right to vote in 1776, and was that the right call in your opinion? As I said above, a law you have to tie yourself in knots to justify might be a bad law. | | |
| ▲ | traderj0e an hour ago | parent [-] | | What are you saying, the US Constitution is bogus because people were racist in 1776? It's undergone amendments and clarifications by the Judicial branch. It's been consistently obvious that foreigners don't have the same rights as citizens here, and tourism or immigration law wouldn't really work otherwise. | | |
| ▲ | Peritract an hour ago | parent [-] | | You didn't answer my question, but here's what I'm saying: > If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law. I disagree that the law (which has been changed, amended and clarified) has been 'consistently obvious', and I still maintain that the conclusion of 'immigrants aren't people' invalidates the law. | | |
| ▲ | traderj0e 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The courts didn't come to the conclusion that immigrants aren't people. Probably the opposite in fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
