> Causes for denaturalization under the 1906 Act included fraud, racial ineligibility and lack of “good moral character.”
And case law concerning this law, Ozawa vs United States:
> The decision goes on to deny that the common population could construe Ozawa, a man of Japanese descent, as white (thus, making him ineligible under section 2169 of the Revised Statutes of the United States).[9] Thus he could not be naturalized, under the current laws, in 1922.
Yeah, the article is the misleading one. Sure bud. Thanks for coming here to defend racism as a basis for citizenship.
Help me see the connection. The government can't denaturalize someone based on racial classifications. Does that mean it can't denaturalize people for any other reason?
How is denaturalizing people for lying on immigration documents "based in racism?" Canada as well, and in Sweden, France, Germany, etc., have the same law.
It makes no sense to say the law shouldn't be enforced simply because a different part of that law was struck down as being unconstitutional.
Help me understand your logic. Because the law had one invalid eligibility criterion in 1906 means we can’t enforce the law against people who lie about other things?
From 1906 to 1952 the eligibility criteria for naturalization included exceptions for fraud and for race.
You are here to say “that’s a good law actually, because fraud is bad. So we should enforce this law and retroactively denaturalize those who didn’t meet the criteria at the time.”
You act confused when people tell you this is stupid and racist.
You’re confused about what the law says. The current law, * USC 1451, was enacted in 1952, and it says you can denaturalize people for lying on their immigration paperwork. The current law has nothing to do with race, and Canada, Sweden, Germany, etc., have similar provisions.
You’re talking about a different provision of the law that hasn’t been in effect for 74 years. Nobody is talking about enforcing that provision.
>It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured
It would have been illegal for, as a random example, a Bangladeshi immigrant to become a citizen until 1952. As in that citizenship was illegally procured.
So I’ll ask you directly, should we use these two laws to denaturalize everyone who, as you put it, “committed fraud”?
And what of the children of these “fraudsters”, why should they inherit citizenship from someone who never had it legally?
You are the one willfully misunderstanding the things you yourself are quoting.
> Nobody is talking about enforcing that provision.
You are. You brought up this 1906 law. You are defending its use today to denaturalize citizens.
That is literally the way laws work. Laws don't have moral statuses attached in them, we prescribe that to them as citizens. It would be wrong for this law to be enforced, and it should be revoked, but from a state perspective and a legal perspective, it IS "perfectly fine".
There is nothing morally wrong with the law either. It's morally irrelevant that it used to be in the same code provision as another law that was based on a racial classification. The law we're talking about today doesn't do that. And I would be surprised if any developed country doesn't have a similar law. Canada does, for example: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/immigration-citizenship/he...
Under the law you are suggesting is a just and legitimate basis for denaturalization, any non-white person naturalized before 1952 can be denaturalized, as they were committing fraud claiming to be white to be eligible for naturalization at the time.
I don’t have to be super imaginative to extend that to wondering how those people’s children could have inherited citizenship from a noncitizen who committed fraud against the US government.
But we’re all just trying to get back to “law and order” here right? What a stupid person you’d have to be to believe that.
> Section 1255 generally requires a lawful admission before
a person can obtain LPR status. Sanchez was not lawfully
admitted, and his TPS does not alter that fact. He therefore
cannot become a permanent resident of this country.
Do you have any evidence this man entered the USA illegally? Seems to me he obviously had a 90 day tourist visa when he entered the country at least. Sounds like lawful admission to me.
Not all the advantages though, hybrids need oil changes, transmission fluid changes, water pump, spark plugs, timing belts, etc. all the maintenance burden of an ICE that EVs do not carry.
I’d rather have an ev with a diesel generator in the pickup bed as my “range extender” than a vehicle with constant maintenance needs.
I can dream of hooking up a generator on a trailer…
I also dream of getting a used Nissan Leaf because most of my trips are to and from town 20 minutes away and we already had gas cars that can take longer trips. If my son wasn’t bringing home old cars I might be able to make the space for it but right now I can’t.
Cool, I guess when I did 700 miles on a single tank of fuel driving Switzerland to Italy and then again driving Italy to Austria and then again Austria to Netherlands this summer I just imagined it. My total for the 3000 miles was 38mpg(imperial).
Also you are quoting a value for the B5, which is not what I have, mine is a T8(and before you ask - no, I didn't have any opportunity to charge it anywhere on the way).
Personally, I still find tools like spec kit give reliably good results in brownfield codebases, but that as I’ve improved my ability to break apart work and describe it, straight prompting has come back as a viable method to perform simple changes.
I think the distinction spills into comedy when the discussion focuses on whether or not Epstein or R Kelly or whoever was a pedophile. It doesn't really matter because obviously they were terrible people regardless of that.
It's a far more sensible point to consider when we're discussing the people around these individuals. If the girls surrounding Epstein had been prepubescent, that'd be a much worse look for the people around him.
“But 14 year olds basically look 18 so it’s ok” is not analytical, it’s apologia. It’s weird how there’s always someone on the internet who really wants to talk about which children it’s actually ok to have sex with.
>Ubisoft will now focus on developing open world adventure games - which let players freely navigate vast environments - and live service games which seek regular payments from players.
Isn’t that what they’ve been doing for a decade that got them to today?
My number 1 complaint with Ubi games is that they all feel the same. Sure, in this one you stab, and in that one you shoot, and in that one over there you stab AND shoot, but it's all fundamentally the same. You've got a drone or a bird or a droid to tag enemies for you, and there's a straightforward shopping-list style crafting mechanic. There's also some vehicle combat, but its very limited, and its pretty rare that you're part of a larger group of vehicles attacking together - at best its a group of enemy vehicles coming after you (and the comedy of errors of those enemy vehicles crashing into each other trying to get to you, because apparently they didn't turn on pathfinding while in "alert" mode...). The whole thing looks like its chasing the annual-release pattern of Call of Duty, and the major sports franchises.
The problem with reorgs can be that the same management that got you into this situation is the one trying to fix everything. Apparently, Ubisoft management only knows one trick.
And case law concerning this law, Ozawa vs United States:
> The decision goes on to deny that the common population could construe Ozawa, a man of Japanese descent, as white (thus, making him ineligible under section 2169 of the Revised Statutes of the United States).[9] Thus he could not be naturalized, under the current laws, in 1922.
Yeah, the article is the misleading one. Sure bud. Thanks for coming here to defend racism as a basis for citizenship.
reply