Focusing on the 14th Amendment instead of the place of Harris's birth doesn't make the argument less racist.
@NancyCooperNYC should study the history of the 14th Amendment (added after the Civil War to give equal rights to Blacks) to see why undermining it is racist.
@NancyCooperNYC says that the 14th Amendment is the one of the most "studied" parts of the Constitution.
The reason?
Because of non-stop attempts on the part of racists, segregationists and former Confederates to find ways around the 14th Amendment.
Allowing this to stand as a valid Constitutional argument could undermine Kamala Harris for the rest of her career.
I entirely disagree that we should fail to call this out.
Here's what you need to know . . .
This view was so repugnant to so many that we fought a thing called the Civil War.
The Confederacy lost. . .
The 15th Amendment was obviously not widely honored for about 100 years.
Hence, the 14th Amendment makes clear that anyone born here was a citizen.
Women were classified with infants and incompetents. While certainly "people" they weren't included in the word "person" in the 14th Amendment.
So that, @NancyCooperNYC, is what we mean by "studied."
Wanna know who won the election for AG?
Yup, Kamala Harris. sfexaminer.com/news/da-harris…
Why wasn't that disclosed in the article, @NancyCooperNYC ?
Why do you think Trump wants to get rid of it?
nytimes.com/2019/08/22/us/…
The argument is that actually, the 14th Amendment doesn't allow for birthright citizenship, something that makes ZERO sense. . .
thepantheronline.com/news/chapman-l…
Because none of their parents were actually citizens, by Eastman's argument, no freed slaves were citizens.
So yes, @NancyCooperNYC, this is an ugly, vile, racist attack on Kamala Harris.