cherry_tree

>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.

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.

Help me understand your logic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It has an 18.8 gallon fuel capacity (https://www.volvocars.com/lb/support/car/xc60/article/dfc6f0...)

That’s a max range of 470 miles. You would need much greater fuel efficiency above 34 mpg to get to 650 miles on an 18.8 gallon tank.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/elon-musk-grokipedia-...

https://english.elpais.com/technology/2025-12-06/jimmy-wales...

Isn’t that what they’ve been doing for a decade that got them to today?

lol and immediately restored the monarchy with his son

Or are you against the idea of “public transportation” (transportation costs shared by taxpayers) and your criticisms of its quality or convenience are really moot because you are ideologically against the premise?

Is there someone already mastering “agents, subagents, their prompts, contexts, memory, modes, permissions, tools, plugins, skills, hooks, MCP, LSP, slash commands, workflows, IDE integrations, and a need to build an all-encompassing mental model for strengths and pitfalls of fundamentally stochastic, fallible, unintelligible and changing entities suddenly intermingled with what used to be good old fashioned engineering” ?

And do they have a blog?

Maybe the bar for moderation should be higher than it is right now. I guess I’m an asshole for wanting such a thing, I can live with that.

> We try to review all the flagged submissions but there are too many for us to look closely at them all.

And surely there is no opportunity for bias there.

But don’t you control who is allowed to flag a post? Don’t you control who is allowed to vouch for a post? Don’t you review the flags that users add and remove them when a submission is inappropriately flagged?

Thanks for the English lit critique I guess but your opinion on various colloquialisms in the English language is not relevant to the conversation.

Your other points are similarly irrelevant to the convo, you use the idea of a market “caring” literally, claiming that of course a market doesn’t have emotions and can’t care which is plainly trying to deflect your suggestion that the market could never reach position x because it’s ultimately unprofitable for a landlord to engage in some behavior long term and you refused to materially respond to or acknowledge any of my points. Your post is abstracted from reality further than the idea that a market could “care” about something being taken literally. Obviously the market is not a human with wants, cares or needs.

> I made a statement in public for all to hear, I am unable to defend the statements I make

Well I’ve asked for you to defend them and this was your response so I assume you are being genuine instead of sarcastic here? Why respond at all I wonder.

If you can point to where I’m being impolite or offended you I’m happy to acknowledge this; I wasn’t planning to have a conversation with someone so sensitive that things like “I think your idea is bad” is a personal insult or impolite.

You must feel that a free market cares that some people will no longer be able to afford rent; I don’t believe the economic definition of a free market includes such an idea; I think it’s very happy to displace people from their homes in order to shuffle in those who are willing to pay higher rents; see also: gentrification

Your point hinges on the idea that rent for people making wages below “SFBay A.I. engineer” is not increasing or would not increase because of the inelasticity of these consumers to price increases; can you substantiate this claim in any way?

It’s also worth noting that there are lots of government grants going towards electrification of vehicles including installation of EV chargers, so even removing your idea about landlords refusing to raise rents because they are worried about their tenants (lol) there is still easy room for landlords to get grants to pay for the installation/maintenance of these chargers anyways.

There’s no profit for the current oligarchy; but to say there is no profit to be made from electrifying a billion plus parking spots; to install and manage infrastructure for millions of small business partners, to build new power plants with ever increasing demand — it sounds like a free markets entrepreneurs wet dream.

Of course to admit such would be to admit we are in a oligarchic structure that is antithetical to a supposed “free market” and so the capitalists must conjure stories about how electricity just is impossible to produce and electrical lines literally cannot be added to the American infrastructure or it will all suddenly topple over.

Differentiating this narrative from the expansion of high speed internet is difficult. Woe is me the oligarchic natural monopoly subsidized or wholly compensated by the taxpayer but unable to advance at all; change is impossible.

It says they used a 1948 definition of genocide, so I’m a bit confused by your sentiment that this is due to shifting definitions.

You have posted the same authors links before.

You consume hacker news at all.

Your implicit assertion that you consume no propaganda itself belies your naïveté to politics as a subject.