Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Id
that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?
The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:
“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]
This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]
No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]
Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
Sorry but you are clueless.
Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?
Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.
That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.
Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?
don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.
I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.
That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?
The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG
No- thats not all it was written for.
My god- have you ever even read the Constitution?
Yes, many times. But obviously you have not read it or studied any american history. You don't even understand what this country stands for.
I may disagree with you about what the United States stands for- but I clearly understand it far better than you do.
you obviously do not. are you a product of the teachers union?
Id
that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?
The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:
“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]
This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]
No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]
Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
Sorry but you are clueless.
Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?
Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.
That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.
Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?
don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.
I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.
Id
that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:
“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]
This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]
No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]
Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
Sorry but you are clueless.
Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?
Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.
That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.
Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?
don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.
I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.
You were the one who said you didn't see the term 'anchor babies' in Wong Kim Ark- I was pointing out that they are not mentioned in the 14th Amendment either.
If you do not think that the language of the 14th Amendment fits today's circumstances, our Constitution provides a method to correct it. We don't just get to pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it is because you think the writers didn't anticipate a problem.
Were you "home schooled"?That is not what I meant. What law determines that the child of a female prisoner of war born in the US or and/or under US jurisdiction would not be protected under the 14th Amendment?
The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG
No- thats not all it was written for.
My god- have you ever even read the Constitution?
Yes, many times. But obviously you have not read it or studied any american history. You don't even understand what this country stands for.
I may disagree with you about what the United States stands for- but I clearly understand it far better than you do.
you obviously do not. are you a product of the teachers union?
Id
that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:
“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]
This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]
No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]
Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
Sorry but you are clueless.
Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?
Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.
That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.
Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?
don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.
I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.
Right. Whether or not the foreign parents of a child born here were here legally or not is not something that either those who ratified the 14th Amendment cared to address or that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark cared to address. Had they wanted to address it, the amendment could have done so. They did not. What they did address were the two things that made a person a natural born citizen. One, being born in the United States. Two, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A child born to illegal aliens meet both of these conditions. If you want to change that, the constitution has to be amended.
Id
that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:
“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]
This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]
No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]
Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
Sorry but you are clueless.
Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?
Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.
That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.
Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?
don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.
I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.
You were the one who said you didn't see the term 'anchor babies' in Wong Kim Ark- I was pointing out that they are not mentioned in the 14th Amendment either.
If you do not think that the language of the 14th Amendment fits today's circumstances, our Constitution provides a method to correct it. We don't just get to pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it is because you think the writers didn't anticipate a problem.
amazing, this BS coming from someone who constantly attacks the "words" of the 2nd amendment. We shouldn't take that one literally, but we have to take the 14th literally, you are a hypocrite like most liberals.
The current interpretation ( and by current, you mean since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock) does no harm. The 4 to 5 million American citizens of undocumented aliens are better for this country than hateful bigots like you. And, why, exactly, would you think that the Supreme Court would overturn a principle of law that they have twice in the last 20 years recognized as settled law?Id
that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:
“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]
This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]
No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]
Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
Sorry but you are clueless.
Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?
Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.
That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.
Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?
don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.
I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.
Right. Whether or not the foreign parents of a child born here were here legally or not is not something that either those who ratified the 14th Amendment cared to address or that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark cared to address. Had they wanted to address it, the amendment could have done so. They did not. What they did address were the two things that made a person a natural born citizen. One, being born in the United States. Two, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A child born to illegal aliens meet both of these conditions. If you want to change that, the constitution has to be amended.
the 14th did not comtemplate children being born to what we refer to today as illegal aliens. The current interpretation will very likely be overturned by SCOTUS in the next couple of years.
The current interpretation (and thats what it is) is causing serious damage to this country and must be corrected.
Id
that If were true, why would they have debated and discussed Chinese and other foreigners? Like they did here:
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:
“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]
This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races – in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California – by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.[22]
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
“The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”[23]
No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sovereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point.
Some Senators clearly thought so. Howard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obligations … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties saying we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”[24]
Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, contending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occasion.[25] Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by adding the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment.[26] But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members,[27] a majority of Senators saw no need for clarification. The Senate ultimately defeated Doolittle’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.[28]
Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to members of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law applies to their nationals who enter U.S. territory.
Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment
Sorry but you are clueless.
Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?
Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.
That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.
Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?
don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.
I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.
Right. Whether or not the foreign parents of a child born here were here legally or not is not something that either those who ratified the 14th Amendment cared to address or that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark cared to address. Had they wanted to address it, the amendment could have done so. They did not. What they did address were the two things that made a person a natural born citizen. One, being born in the United States. Two, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A child born to illegal aliens meet both of these conditions. If you want to change that, the constitution has to be amended.
the 14th did not comtemplate children being born to what we refer to today as illegal aliens. The current interpretation will very likely be overturned by SCOTUS in the next couple of years.
The current interpretation (and thats what it is) is causing serious damage to this country and must be corrected.
Of course people disagree with that. LOLDisagree with what? Birthright citizenship is a product of the 14th Amendment. No one disagrees with that. And, yes, after the 14th Amendment was passed birthright citizenship was extended by statute to others. What that has to do with this discussion is the question.the code assumed the 14th conferred birthright citizenship. I realize you disagree, but people smarter than you disagree with you.Birthright citizenship is a product of the 14th Amendment, not the US Code.For what it's worth, I was wrong about birthright citizenship being added to the US code in the 1960s. It was there in 1940, and without wasting more time and failing to get stuff done, must have been there prior to the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which in turn led to the Wong decision.
Were you "home schooled"?The 14th was written to grant citizenship to freed slaves. That is all it was written for. The interpretation being given today is WRONG
No- thats not all it was written for.
My god- have you ever even read the Constitution?
Yes, many times. But obviously you have not read it or studied any american history. You don't even understand what this country stands for.
I may disagree with you about what the United States stands for- but I clearly understand it far better than you do.
you obviously do not. are you a product of the teachers union?
I got news, you never got started. No one disagrees with the fact that the 14th amendment confers birthright citizenship. What some contend is that it does not convey it on the children of those here illegally.Of course people disagree with that. LOLDisagree with what? Birthright citizenship is a product of the 14th Amendment. No one disagrees with that. And, yes, after the 14th Amendment was passed birthright citizenship was extended by statute to others. What that has to do with this discussion is the question.the code assumed the 14th conferred birthright citizenship. I realize you disagree, but people smarter than you disagree with you.Birthright citizenship is a product of the 14th Amendment, not the US Code.For what it's worth, I was wrong about birthright citizenship being added to the US code in the 1960s. It was there in 1940, and without wasting more time and failing to get stuff done, must have been there prior to the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which in turn led to the Wong decision.
I'm done.
Hmmm, I seem to have missed the words "anchor babies". Can you point them out for us?
Nowhere in that discussion is the current issue discussed, i.e. a pregnant woman entering the country days before giving birth solely in order to make her child an american citizen and thereby allowing her and her husband to stay in this country.
That is what is going on today and its a violation of the 14th amendment and the intent of the the writers of that amendment.
Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?
don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.
I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.
Right. Whether or not the foreign parents of a child born here were here legally or not is not something that either those who ratified the 14th Amendment cared to address or that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark cared to address. Had they wanted to address it, the amendment could have done so. They did not. What they did address were the two things that made a person a natural born citizen. One, being born in the United States. Two, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A child born to illegal aliens meet both of these conditions. If you want to change that, the constitution has to be amended.
the 14th did not comtemplate children being born to what we refer to today as illegal aliens. The current interpretation will very likely be overturned by SCOTUS in the next couple of years.
The current interpretation (and thats what it is) is causing serious damage to this country and must be corrected.
The current interpretation is based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
If you think that should be corrected, that is what the Amendment process was put in the Constitution for.
Were you "home schooled"?No- thats not all it was written for.
My god- have you ever even read the Constitution?
Yes, many times. But obviously you have not read it or studied any american history. You don't even understand what this country stands for.
I may disagree with you about what the United States stands for- but I clearly understand it far better than you do.
you obviously do not. are you a product of the teachers union?
graduated from an integrated high school
Bachelors degree from a state university
MBA from Harvard
Post Graduate studies at Wharton and Harvard
Did business internationally in the UK, Japan, Germany, France, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.
I am quite sure that my educational and experience qualifications exceed yours.
but I would be glad to compare.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!
No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...
So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.
I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!
Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."
The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!
For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:
obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression
You are a tool. You posted that the only intent behind the law, and the only thing the drafters discussed, was making freed slaves citizens. I proved that wrong. Now you are back to saying that the intent of the law is clear when you have no fucking clue what you think that intent was. The current interpretation is based on Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark, if you would take the time to read it, is based on centuries of English Common Law; law that held that if a person was born in the territory subject to the King, that person was a citizen or subject of that King and Kingdom. There has been no new construction of the 14th Amendment or the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Harvard and Penn , as well as your integrated high school and state university, should be glad that you are not associating your real name with them. They would be embarrassed to claim such an idiot as a graduate.Here is the relevant portion of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Where does it say 'except Anchor babies"?
don't be more ridiculous than you already are. of course it does not mention anchor babies, the concept was not even thought of in those days.
I am not questioning the words of the 14th amendment, I understand what the words say. What I am trying to get through your thick skull is that the drafters of that amendment did not, and could not, comtemplate that their words would ever be used to grant citizenship to the children of people in this country illegally. Illegally is a term of art in this discussion. It means what it meant at the time, not what it is being interpreted to mean today.
Right. Whether or not the foreign parents of a child born here were here legally or not is not something that either those who ratified the 14th Amendment cared to address or that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark cared to address. Had they wanted to address it, the amendment could have done so. They did not. What they did address were the two things that made a person a natural born citizen. One, being born in the United States. Two, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A child born to illegal aliens meet both of these conditions. If you want to change that, the constitution has to be amended.
the 14th did not comtemplate children being born to what we refer to today as illegal aliens. The current interpretation will very likely be overturned by SCOTUS in the next couple of years.
The current interpretation (and thats what it is) is causing serious damage to this country and must be corrected.
The current interpretation is based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.
If you think that should be corrected, that is what the Amendment process was put in the Constitution for.
the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.
Actually, you do have to live with the children of illegal aliens born here being citizens. They are. Probably close to 700 were born today and, guess what, they are United States Citizens. They will be voting in 18 years. And you cannot do a fucking thing about it.This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!
No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...
So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.
I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!
Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."
The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!
For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:
obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression
You haven't explained anything. I'm not reading it incorrectly. What you continue to want to do is dissect sentences to make them mean what you want them to mean. You claim the author of the 14th was being "declarative" when he said "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." I disagree. There is no need to declare ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens...this is redundant information. Anyone with a brain greater than Terri Schiavo understands a foreign minister is foreign! -- Furthermore, there is a clear distinction made here between a "foreigner" and an "alien" and you also want to ignore that.
So don't lecture me and tell me I have to live with YOUR interpretation of what he meant. I don't have to live with ANYTHING your moronic ass claims.. .EVER!
...the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.
Actually, you do have to live with the children of illegal aliens born here being citizens. They are. Probably close to 700 were born today and, guess what, they are United States Citizens. They will be voting in 18 years. And you cannot do a fucking thing about it.Paddy, Camp, other morons... This is from the man who WROTE the damn 14th. I think he might be an "expert" on the subject.... since he WROTE it. Now, I want you to pay close attention to the part in red but also, pay closer attention to the words in purple. What are you reading? Is this computing incorrectly in your brains? Do you think we need to see about increasing your meds?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Boss you have done it again! Your emphasized text above in the red and purple are all in the same group! Do you see any conjunction in there joining disparate groups of people? Of course not. That is because the sentence is referring to the persons who are born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers are foreigners, aliens. Same words, with the same meaning put into 21st Century parlance.They are a single class of persons with regard to Amendment XIV!
No... It's a lot of twisting and gyrating to find an alternative meaning in a sentence with way too many words to ever mean what you claim.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers...
So why is the red part even in the sentence? It's redundant. If it means what you claim, it doen't even need to be there... read the sentence without it. Obviously, foreign ambassadors and ministers are foreigners and aliens. I don't think in all our history we've ever had a foreign diplomat from another country who was an American citizen. So this doesn't regard parlance or what century, it's about sentence construction and comprehending basic English grammar.
I already explained why that is in the sentence. It was pointed out to you how to read it correctly, but if you did you would be admitting error, which is something you have neither the dignity nor the honor to admit any error on your part!
Your "excuse" that the commas represent the conjunctive "or" is absolutely and astonishingly ABSURD! The portion of the quote you placed is anything but redundant. IT IS DECLARITIVE!!!! That class is the EXCEPTION in the Amendment the author of the sentence is talking about, and to which he goes on to say,"... but will include every other class of persons."
The author of Amendment XIV sets out the two classes of people, to which the first clause of the first Section applies and do not apply in that sentence you quoted! The children born in the US, the foreigners, aliens to those in diplomatic service to another Nation is the first class which is excluded and all other children born in the US and to those children born in the US to all other parents NOT in diplomatic service in the second class! You cited the author's declaration so you live with the meaning as the author intended. A comma is shorthand for "OR"? That is utterly laughable! Your damn dog must've eaten your homework daily for however long you were in school!
For your edification...
From Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary:
obtuse -
1. .....
2. a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid
b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression
You haven't explained anything. I'm not reading it incorrectly. What you continue to want to do is dissect sentences to make them mean what you want them to mean. You claim the author of the 14th was being "declarative" when he said "..who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of diplomats." I disagree. There is no need to declare ambassadors and foreign ministers are foreigners and aliens...this is redundant information. Anyone with a brain greater than Terri Schiavo understands a foreign minister is foreign! -- Furthermore, there is a clear distinction made here between a "foreigner" and an "alien" and you also want to ignore that.
So don't lecture me and tell me I have to live with YOUR interpretation of what he meant. I don't have to live with ANYTHING your moronic ass claims.. .EVER!
Back to that idiocy. The power to legislate the naturalization process has not a damn thing to do who is a natural born citizen....the language is clear, the intent is also clear. the current interpretation is wrong. an amendment is not needed, SCOTUS or congress could fix it.
I disagree that SCOTUS can fix this. They can't fix this any more than they can choose a president or pass a bill into law.... It's NOT within their Constitutional authority pursuant to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. It is an enumerated and plenary power of Congress... one of a limited few powers granted to Congress and Congress alone. Not the Supreme Court, not MSNBC, not some talking head "expert" and not some liberal pinheads on a message board who don't comprehend the most rudimentary English grammar.
