> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) has much bearing on this question and remains one of the best precedental interpretations of the 14th Amendment wrt this issue; It records the matter in which:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
and further:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith” or “power,” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim, protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance ; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King.
among other things, upon which it was concluded that
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. Qa, “ strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject; ” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the naturalborn child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
and
To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.
Regardless of whether birthright citizenship is appropriate contemporary policy, changing it would require an Amendment to the Constitution.
Christianity was very different, and the evidence for that is undeniable and gigantic. The fruits of diversity within christendom is offered in great treasure heaps within science, music, art, philosophy, theology, lifestyles, ways of worship, mysteries of the faith, and culture in general.
Christianity merged with local cultures, removing some aspects and adding some aspects.
Translating the arabic texts of science (either copied and expanded from greek, latin and other places, or new research) and claiming that it was widom of the ancients?
Please educate yourself more on this. Step out of your bubble.
Christian nations have created the cultural and technical achievements over the last thousands of years. There is nothing even remotely comparable.
I wouldn't thank Christianity for the scientific advancements of the West, except maybe for protestant work ethic. Science only started to flourish when Catholic church started to lose power, and religion became a bit more separated from law and politics.
Best religion for progress of humanity is the one that embraces work, tells people to treat each other fairly, and otherwise keeps its hands off from irrelevant details of people's lives - things like what consenting adults do in bed, what they eat or drink, what they can or can't say.
Unfortunately Christians have been historically way too focused on the bad parts while ignoring the good parts, leading to madness like wars between Catholics and Protestants and discrimination of minorities. Think of the current conservative elite in America for example - it's hard to find people who are further away from teachings of Jesus Christ than those greedy, hateful idiots.
More like the last 500 years.
Before that the cultural and scientific centers of the world were variously in muslim, hindu, chinese, roman and other civilizations.
The Roman/Byzantine empire was pretty much destroyed by Muslims, though. Its a but like thanking the Franks/Goths/etc. for preserving Roman cultural identity in Western Europe by preserving some of their texts..
> The Roman/Byzantine empire was pretty much destroyed by Muslims, though
This is hilariously untrue, if one is talking about the Western Roman empire. An islamic state did conquer Constantinople, which I presume is what you mean.
The Roman empire (western) basically fell apart due to infighting more than anything else.
I don't believe in the original sin of slavery in Western countries.
Slavery has been existed for centuries before and, despite being abolished by Western countries (hint: there were several wars were people lost lives), still exists in China, India, Indonesia, and a large group of Arab countries.
> I don't believe in the original sin of slavery in Western countries.
I have no idea what that sentence is specifically meant to mean, that aside, western countries have had actual slavery and effective slavery both in the past and the present.
I don't mean to exclusively beat on Christians or just Catholics here; but I do intend to counter your apparent narrative of good Christians and evil Muslims.
Christians certainly diminished a lot of cultures, just as other religions also did - the initial point that started this above.
Be fair now, the Catholic Church hasn't always and consistently been a backward medieval deathcult - there have been periods of non Crusading, non Inquisition, not slaughtering Cathars, not trading in babies, etc.
Its been the most anti-slavery religion and was the main motivation for the abolition of slavery. There is no Christian objection to 'miscegenation' and its a weird concept only taken up in America and a few other places like South Africa during apartheid, and it owes more to race science than Christianity.
> Its been the most anti-slavery religion and was the main motivation for the abolition of slavery.
Which branch of Christianity though? There was a huge disparity in approaches in new england colonies (ie rhode island thought the indigenous should have rights, Massachusetts couldn't give a shit about anyone other than the elected.)
A lot of the english abolitionists were radicals, well outside the mainstream. The Quakers, Methodists, shakers were all deeply scary to the establishment
There was always Christian opposition to slavery much of it from the mainstream as well as radicals. St Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, several Popes and . Several Christian kingdoms (including England) abolished slavery and/or slave trading in medieval times.
The US has tended towards justifying slavery, and its arguments included the ¨curse of Ham" borrowed from Muslim slave traders. British colonies in the Caribbean produced censored version of the Bible for slaves.
Yet Christians had no problems taking, owning an selling slaves on an industrial scale for 100s of years. Their book even includes an ownership guide. And then you want a gold star for stopping what you created? The theocratic mind is laughable.
You mean the books of the Bible containing rules explicitly rejected by Christians from the start? The rules that Jesus is recorded as saying was a moral compromise? You are also conveniently skipping over the declarations of equality (with regard to slavery, race and sex) in the New Testament.
That's the thing, there's something about just about everything that can be interpreted in either direction. But christians are just humans, we do these things. The problem I have is when christians pretend they are better and always were because their new interpretation of some text. American slavery being a great example of this as the bible was just to both justify and in abolishment. And as usual, its all about what parts we currently like while ignoring the others.
To be fair in addition to the uncountable horrible things it did or took part in the Catholic church did build the foundations that allowed the concepts of modern scientific thought to develop. No other religion did that.
And they burned quite people for defending the science that went against their beliefs. They only stopped when they thought it would be good for their economic profits.
Exactly the same when they stopped protecting slavery, when they thought it would be good as they would get a lot of new followers and all the money and influence that would come with them.And all the fights that gave birth to the other Christian churches always for the same reasons power and money.
Oh playing the old game of "you more" , we're not debating which belief is more savage than the other, all of them are, we're pointing out that the followers of the supposedly all loving version of a god killed,should we say assassinated, lots of people just because their discoveries did not fit in their stories books.
That varied wildly. Generally more of an exception that the rule but in the worst cases like under the Almohad’s you did have Jewish or even less extremist Muslim refugees fleeing to the more tolerant (at the time) Christian kingdoms.
Well yes it’s relative. However the Church in the 1400s to 1600s or so was generally very permissive of scientific debate and not strictly dogmatic. See Galileo’s story, the issue is that when they rejected something (based on a reasonably valid scientific process albeit based on flawed evidence available at the time) that was kind of it and continued to challenging the consensus got you into some deep trouble (with a few exceptions).
One interesting thing is that in the 1400s open debate and heterodoxy was generally tolerated or even accepted IF you did it in Latin and only inside the “international scholar network” that existed at the time and didn’t go around preaching your ideas to peasants and such.
I’m certainly not implying that it was in any way good or let alone perfect in absolute terms, just that it.
To be fair for the most part Christianity didn’t spread top down through violent conquest (obviously with some huge exceptions) at least in the Middle East and surrounding regions. Also it’s historically better at integrating local cultural practices and languages.
Unlike Islam which which usually wiped out local cultural and linguistic identities (during the periods of Arab conquests, that shifted quite a but later on of course)
And when you say “historically better at integrating local cultural practices”, India, China and Australia, would like a word with you. Holy shit you should just delete your account right now
No, why would you say I did that? Also if everyone ever referencing any historical event ever would have to explicitly list and condemn every single thing they think was wrong it would become rather verbose and boring to read. Overall the crusaders were worse than some violent conquerors and better than others.
Well the crusades, northern crusades and most of imperialism.
For the most part it's enough to conquer a place. People below the timing elite would switch religions as it would be beneficial for them, and eventually trickle down to peasants and such.
Many of the regions they invaded were still (or until quite recently) majority Christian. After all initially it was a defensive relief expedition organized by the pope and the Byzantine emperor to free the territories the empire lost in Anatolia very recently. Of course it was massively more successful than anyone anticipated and they just kept on going and then the whole thing got “slightly” out of hand..
But yes, as I said there were some huge exceptions. However early on the way Christianity spread was fundamentally different to Islam. It was usually not through violent conquest but bottom up.
European imperialism was quite mixed as well. Christianity played a huge part in the Spanish conquests of the Americas. Much less so in British India and other similar places.
Very peaceful when you convienently ignore all the violence.
Northern crusades were extremely bloody and defeated people would accept baptism or be executed.
Charlemange was more of the same deal.
Catholic church left pagans to their own devices?
Christian history is littered with these examples, it has not been a peaceful religion since it merged with Roman society. The only real good examples you could have are missionaries and top down conversion as kings and such voluntarily switched religions.
> Catholic church left pagans to their own devices?
It varied, although generally the Catholic church was fairly open at integrating or even occasionally tolerating pagan practices or providing alternative options to people used to more polytheistic religions. Like the whole saint worshipping (“venerating”) thing. Often (with some exceptions) pagans found conversion fairly easy since they could just map their gods to equivalent Christian saints continue worshipping them. Basically every converted pagan society had a multi-generationa transition period.
Then you had stuff lime praying to magical corpses or body parts, so their previous owners could perform miracles. With some exceptions it has generally been a highly flexible religion before the reformation.
Islam is much more rigid about following the rules and stuff like idol worship (as a consequence they brought back visual arts back to the stone ages..)
Preferably there would be more implementation. But if they only implement the "standard" language, it will be missing a lot of things. That is the point!
It's not Haskell anymore. It's Glasgow Haskell. It's its own language at this point.
That I was aware of. I'm more familiar with his media and wildlife conservation efforts than his business acumen or sports achievements. Captain Planet, Turner Classic Movies, Hanna-Barbera, Cartoon Network, etc.
This is not what "subjective" means. You can't argue something is subjective because many people don't agree with an opinion.
When someone argues subjectivity (in a negative sense), they need to show that the opinion does not rely on facts, rather it's based on... nothing (feelings).
I offered a very easy way to numerically assess the negative impact of poor language design choices made by Haskell designers. It's not about what I "feel" about the language: in Java, you write three-words program, and you get, usually, a unique interpretation. In Haskell, you write a three-words program, and you get 9 (nine) possible interpretations. It's impossible for a human to examine nine interpretations simultaneously and figure out which of them are valid and might fit the context. So, reading a Haskell program takes longer and requires more effort than a Java program.
Of course, Haskell programmers find ways to adapt to their misfortune. They try to avoid pathological cases (eg. writing four-words programs, let alone five!), they memorize a lot of acronyms and non-typographical symbols that they later use to prune the search for a possible meaning of the program. They invent conventions on top of the bare language design that constrain the search space for possible programs to make their task easier.
It's absolutely possible that after layers of conventions and a long time spent memorizing various acronyms and symbols, Haskell programmers catch up to speed of programmers in other languages: after all, the superficial difficulties with the language might seem like a small price to pay for the access to the language's riches that lay beyond the surface. The language grammar rules cannot account for the entirety of the performance of the programmers who chose to write in the language.
This situation is very similar to the "universal" (claimed, but not in practice) mathematical language, which is extremely difficult to read, write, edit, typeset... yet the tradition of using it prevails and the overwhelming majority of mathematicians use, and prefer using the "universal" mathematical language even though much saner alternatives exist.
There aren't a lot of Haskell programmers, so "lots" is maybe an exaggeration.
I see OP's point. Haskell feels (or felt, I admit I haven't been keeping up the last 15 years) needlessly obtuse sometimes, like how people love to invent new infix operators all the time.
The original comment was "I think that though we are a railway company, we consider ourselves a city-shaping company." Kyoto is absolutely not built around its station. Walk a few blocks away and there's nothing but regular apartments! The true centre is Shijo Kawaramachi.
That is an important piece of context that isn't mentioned in the linked article. Instead, the state department makes it seem like they were kicked out for espousing opinions that the government doesn't like.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.