Timeline for 14th Amendment and citizenship
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feb 22, 2019 at 3:37 | comment | added | ohwilleke | > Would it be fair to say that the 14th Amendment had the effect of > simplifying laws pertaining to citizenship in the U.S.A.? In the case of people born in the United States, it simplifies the law significantly. In the case of people not born in the United States, it doesn't have any effect. | |
Feb 22, 2019 at 3:29 | answer | added | David Siegel | timeline score: 2 | |
Jan 10, 2019 at 17:17 | comment | added | bdb484 | @MichaelHardy I'm confused by your interpretation, which doesn't seem to square with the Court's explicit disclaimer that its holding applies only to "those persons who are the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves." 60 U.S. at 403. Am I really absolutely wrong, or is there some way to reconcile that language with your broader interpretation? | |
Jan 10, 2019 at 0:30 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @aidanh010 : A question that is ONLY about citizenship laws is not a legal question? | |
Jan 10, 2019 at 0:27 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @bdb484 : You wrote: "as I understand it; blacks were only disqualified if they were imported as slaves or born to someone who was". That is absolutely wrong. The ruling in Scott v. Sanford said that negroes are not citizens. | |
Jan 8, 2019 at 22:58 | comment | added | Aidan | Somewhat subjective, not really a legal question | |
Dec 28, 2018 at 10:55 | review | Close votes | |||
Jan 15, 2019 at 21:33 | |||||
Nov 4, 2018 at 0:28 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | Voting has never been considered a right of all citizens. Citizens under 18 are not allowed to vote (and under 21 in most states before the 26th Amendment); in most states citizens imprisoned for felonies are not allowed to vote; before 1920 citizens who were female were not allowed to vote in most states (in some states they could vote for candidates for some offices but not for others); in the 18th century citizens who owned no property were not allowed to vote except in Vermont; and I suspect in some states before 1870 race was was an official criterion. | |
Nov 4, 2018 at 0:17 | comment | added | bdb484 | Source, please. | |
Nov 3, 2018 at 23:32 | comment | added | jmoreno | @bdb484: that’s incorrect. Just being black could be enough to disqualify one from voting or exercising the rights of citizens. | |
Aug 27, 2018 at 15:56 | comment | added | bdb484 | Not really. Having black skin did not disqualify you from citizenship, as I understand it; blacks were only disqualified if they were imported as slaves or born to someone who was. Someone who had freely migrated be eligible for citizenship. Either way, the question isn't really about simplifying visual identification of citizenship; it's asking about simplifying citizenship law. | |
Aug 27, 2018 at 13:39 | comment | added | abelenky | @MichaelHardy: In the context of the time and place of the 14th, a white foreign national would stand out. His accent, clothing and social standing would make it clear he was not a US citizen. It was still obvious who was and was not a citizen. | |
Aug 27, 2018 at 13:11 | comment | added | Michael Hardy | @abelenky : No. "White" could not have meant "Citizen". A white visitor from Europe was not a citizen, but could become so only by getting naturalized. | |
Aug 27, 2018 at 12:54 | comment | added | abelenky | I actually think it made Citizenship more complicated: Before, you could determine someone's citizenship mostly by just looking at their skin tone. White means Citizen. After the 14th, citizenship could be determined by investigating when and where someone was born. | |
Aug 27, 2018 at 12:19 | comment | added | Bobson | I think that amendment was intended to broaden citizenship to include black former-slaves. Whether that was a simplification, I can't say. | |
Aug 27, 2018 at 6:30 | history | asked | Michael Hardy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |