How do you read the 14th Amendment regarding Birthright Citizenship?

[mbig]

...

Of course, the American people can always amend the Constitution to change the principle of birthright citizenship..."
Read more at: Birthright Citizenship & Donald Trump | National Review Online

I see you WHIFFED on my [unmissable] #102 and #103 which BOTH quoted and Refuted you.
One citing the Most recent case, and an ACTUAL Judge on the matter.

I find this 'skip posting'/DENIALISM in favor the easier entries, Reprehensible, disingenuous, and a unwitting Admission that the poster/S skipping meat is/are wrong.
Conspicuously, NO One else has tackled them either.
They can't.
But you got the Least Excuse as quot-ee.
Kim Ark, whose parents were Domiciled here LEGALLY at the time of his birth, already addressed in those posts too.

I read your FAS article. And...?
It's your duty to cite relevant passages from it not just wave it in the air.
Understand? I doubt it.

 

[Paperview]

Or maybe you imagine you know better how to go about interpreting the Constitution than the Supreme Court.

Plyler v Doe (Citing Wong Kim Ark) ?

Did they get it ...Wong? Yes, I've hear the countering argument the case doesn't apply because it was about denying free public school to alien children - but they did draw heavily from Ark and addressed the phrase.

From the Federalist:


"[A]ll nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan explicitly rejected the contention that “persons who have entered the United States illegally are not ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase ‘within its jurisdiction.’” In reaching this conclusion, Brennan invoked the Citizenship Clause and the Court’s analysis in Wong Kim Ark, noting that

“[e]very 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.” … [N]o plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘ jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”[39]

The four dissenting justices – Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor – rejected Brennan’s application of equal protection to the case at hand. But they pointedly expressed “no quarrel” with his threshold determination that “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically ‘within the jurisdiction’ of a state.”[40]

The Court continues to abide by this understanding to this day. In INS v. Rios-Pineda (1985), Justice White noted for a unanimous Court that “respondent wife [an illegal alien] had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.”[41] And in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the plurality opinion noted that alleged Taliban fighter Yaser Hamdi was “orn in Louisiana” and thus “is an American citizen,” despite objections by various amici that, at the time of his birth, his parents were aliens in the U.S. on temporary work visas." Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment

 

[Paperview]

The idea you are arguing for--that the mere fact of being born within the realm of the sovereign makes a person a subject of the sovereign, and entitles the sovereign to his allegiance--is a relic of English common law from centuries ago. If there is any evidence that the idea of birth citizenship was transported to America, let alone that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment meant to revive it in 1868, you have not presented it.

Are you familiar with Lynch v Clarke [1844] ?

Frederick Van Dyne, Citizenship of the United States (1904)
(Van Dyne was the Assistant Solicitor for the US Department of State.)

"After an exhaustive examination of the law, the court [in Lynch v. Clarke] said that it entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession and the universal impression of the public mind."

Or how about this guy, who rubbed shoulders with some of our Founders, and wrote the first legal treatise published in America:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…

The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
​

 

[Paperview]

I see you WHIFFED on my [unmissable] #102 and #103 which BOTH quoted and Refuted you.
One citing the Most recent case, and an ACTUAL Judge on the matter.

I find this 'skip posting'/DENIALISM in favor the easier entries, Reprehensible, disingenuous, and a unwitting Admission that the poster/S skipping meat is/are wrong.
Conspicuously, NO One else has tackled them either.
They can't.
But you got the Least Excuse as quot-ee.

Woo hoo - look at you get mad. lol. I saw your short sentence and long wiki cite - a page that get's edited practically daily there lately with the current hubbub and controversy. I don't have time to go plucking through the footnotes (wiki is only as good as its footnotes) to see what's been messed with.

Maybe that's why everyone else dismissed it too.

All you really said anyway was a judge said no Amendment was necessary. Big Whoop. Others have said it is.

In addition, Judge Posner's position was referenced in the CRS study I posted. Maybe you missed it.

You and others keep saying it as fact: No Amendment Necessary.

What happens when laws are passed that are subject to constitutional challenge? You can bet yerass that legislation would be tested in the courts. Then we'd see the actual answer to the question.

Until then, it's just people flapping their gums.

Kim Ark, whose parents were Domiciled here LEGALLY at the time of his birth, already addressed in those posts too.

As I posed earlier:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, defined birthright citizenship, extending it to African Americans and also to most persons born in the United States.

In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark , the United States Supreme Court made clear that, under these laws, U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation. However, in the 1884 decision Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court held that Native Americans were not U.S. citizens under the terms of the Citizenship Clause. Native Americans were U.S. citizens by treaties or statutes granting U.S. citizenship to members of specific tribes. Immigration and nationality statutes enacted in 1924, 1940, and 1952 granted U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf

I read your FAS article. And...?
It's your duty to cite relevant passages from it not just wave it in the air.
Understand? I doubt it.

I *did* -- You even quoted it.

Understand? I doubt it.

 

[mike2810]

There's a whole lot of garbage at that link authored by "Fred."

Subject to the jurisdiction - means subject / governed by our laws. An illegal alien is subject to our laws. To think otherwise is preposterous.

It's not that hard to grasp. People are turning themselves in knots to make plain and long well-understood words into something they are not.

It is not hard to grasp when you take it out of historical perspective. In your mind to you really believe the authors of the 14th amendment were considering the illegal aliens of today?

imo the amendment was written to address the the "slaves" and "native people" at the time. As pointed out in the link I provided.

Noted, you provided nothing but an opinion of "garbage" and nothing to support your view.

 

[mbig]

Woo hoo - look at you get mad. lol. I saw your short sentence and long wiki cite - a page that get's edited practically daily there lately with the current hubbub and controversy. I don't have time...
Maybe that's why everyone else dismissed it too.

"Everyone else" also couldn't handle it.
It porked them as it did you... til I Forced/Embarrassed you to acknowledge an Experienced real opinion.

Additionally, I cited a Law Professor and author at UCAL..
and additionally made a SECOND Post/link Explaining WHY Kim Ark is MIsinterpreted.
NO reply.
Just more rote/COPY FAS/BS from you.

All you really said anyway was a judge said no Amendment was necessary..
In addition, Judge Posner's position was referenced in the CRS study I posted. Maybe you missed it.
You and others keep saying it as fact: No Amendment Necessary.
What happens when laws are passed that are subject to constitutional challenge? You can bet yerass that legislation would be tested in the courts. Then we'd see the actual answer to the question.
Until then, it's just people flapping their gums.

What do you mean "Then we'd see"?
YOU already claimed it was open and shut and we should "Stop Squawking".
Now you BACKPEDAL to "we'd see."

As I posed earlier:
"The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, defined birthright citizenship, extending it to African Americans and also to most persons born in the United States.
In an 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark , the United States Supreme Court made clear that, under these laws, U.S.-born children of aliens were U.S. citizens [SIZE=]regardless of the alienage and national origin of their parents[/SIZE], with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and hostile invasion and occupation forces of a foreign nation. However, in the 1884 decision Elk v. Wilkins....redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Fsgp%2Fcrs%2Fmisc%2FRL33079.pdf"]http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf[/URL][/I]

I've already explained WHY this citation is wrong on Kim Ark
You are NOT CONVERSANT, you merely repeat the same/only FAS link written in 2012 by "Margaret Mikyoung Lee"...
who graduated UCLA Law in 2011.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/margaret-lee/9/406/a72
LOL
"Legislative Attorney". :^)

She doesn't compare to MY sources..

The most recent judge to weigh in on the issue as to whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the policy is Judge Richard Posner who remarked in a 2003 case that "Congress would Not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an End to the Nonsense." He explained,
"A constitutional amendment May be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I Doubt it." Posner also wrote, that automatic birthright citizenship is a policy that "Congress should rethink" and that the United States "should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children."[72]

Professor Edward J. Erler of the California State University has argued that "Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on Reciprocal Consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual.
Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are NOT subject to American jurisdiction.

A constitutional amendment is No more required now than it was in 1923."[73]....​

While I sourced..
JUDGE Posner and Constitutional Scholar/Author Erler
Edward J. Erler - The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles - Kirby Center
far more experienced and distinguished from someone who just graduated and was some legal ASSISTANT.
Yeah, that's your [only] 'Source'.

You gotta learn to use google beside finding ANYTHING that agrees with you.
It's not even close.


EDIT:
Note ANOTHER WHIFF/Powder/"I'm bored" Excuse by Paperview below after having his Only source/"FAS"/Lee/2012 outed as Teeny Bopper Law Student/New grad/2011.
LOL
Game Over!

 

[Paperview]

It is not hard to grasp when you take it out of historical perspective. In your mind to you really believe the authors of the 14th amendment were considering the illegal aliens of today?

imo the amendment was written to address the the "slaves" and "native people" at the time. As pointed out in the link I provided.

Noted, you provided nothing but an opinion of "garbage" and nothing to support your view.

Ok, you swing on Fred's rope and go with that - and illegal foreigner is not subject to / governed by our laws.

Winna!

Listen: Birthright citizenship, like it or not, jus soli - is what prevails in this country, and has since well before the Civil War and the CRA /14th A passed in its aftermath (excluding blacks, prior to that).

You don't have to like it - it's is the fact of the matter.

Change it, but don't pretend it now is something it isn't - which is what you and the other Trumpateers are trying to do.

 

[Paperview]

It was 2003.
If dismissmissed iyt wouldn't say "MOST RECENT" and contain an Experienced real opinion.
Additionally I cited a Law Professor and author at UCAL..
and afditionally made a SECOND Post Explaining WHY Kim Ark ius MIsinterpreted.
NO reply.
Just more rote FAS/BS from you.

]
WQghat do you mean "Then we'd see"?
YOU already claimec it was open and shut and we should "Stop Squawking".
Now you BACKPEDAL to we have to wait and see.


I've already excplaiomed WHY this citation is wrong on Kim Ark
You are NOT CONVERSANT, merely repeat the same/only FAS link written in 2012 by "Margaret Mikyoung Lee"...
who graduated UCLA Law in 2011.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/margaret-lee/9/406/a72
LOL
"Legislative Attorney". :^)

She doesn't compare to MY sources..

lol. Were your fingers banging that hard on the keyboard? Yikes. What a struggle to get through that mess.

I really don't care to expend energy debating someone with that level of crank, and really, I'll tired of repeating myself. Nothing I say will change your mind. Believe what you want.

Jufdge Posner and Erler far more exoperienced and distinguished from sopmeone who just graduated and was some legal ASSITANT.
Yeah, that's your [only] 'Source'.

You gotta learn to use google.
It's not even close.

*yawn* I'm bored.

Have a nice day.

 

[Paperview]

Oh, and for the record, you perhaps should take your own advice about research.

Your Linkedin citation is for a different woman.

:heh:

It might have tipped you off when there was no reference to her working for the Library of Congress / CRS. Just picked off a Margaret Lee lawyer at random, eh?

The women who wrote that CRS piece authored numerous congressional research works, went to Yale, got her Law degree at William and Mary, and was admitted to the Bar 25 years ago.

Margaret Mikyung Lee Lawyer Profile on Martindale.com

OOps.

 

[mike2810]

Ok, you swing on Fred's rope and go with that - and illegal foreigner is not subject to / governed by our laws.

Winna!

Listen: Birthright citizenship, like it or not, jus soli - is what prevails in this country, and has since well before the Civil War and the CRA /14th A passed in its aftermath (excluding blacks, prior to that).

You don't have to like it - it's is the fact of the matter.

Change it, but don't pretend it now is something it isn't - which is what you and the other Trumpateers are trying to do.

Actually this topic has been discussed before on DP. Way before Trump.

FYI, I don't like Trump and Hillary. So cut the bs.

 

[mbig]

Oh, and for the record, you perhaps should take your own advice about research.
Your Linkedin citation is for a different woman.
:heh:It might have tipped you off when there was no reference to her working for the Library of Congress / CRS. Just picked off a Margaret Lee lawyer at random, eh? The women who wrote that CRS piece authored numerous congressional research works, went to Yale, got her Law degree at William and Mary, and was admitted to the Bar 25 years ago.
Margaret Mikyung Lee Lawyer Profile on Martindale.com
OOps.

(paperview's post compressed from it's fluffed-up- for-appearance double spacing, to single spacing)

It appears it is My Mistake on Ms Lee.

However, I am correct on EVERYTHING else you can't reply to.
1. You Dodged my Unmissable posts 102/103 because they Devastated your position. As did everyone else on your side.
2. However, you did have to BACKPEDAL from It's over "Stop Squawking" to "we'll see" when it gets to court.
Proving you did see and feel it.
3. My link/Wiki/Overview contain an Actual Judge's opinion and that of a lifelong Constitutional Scholar/Author.. as well as
4. Additional links explaining why Kim Ark is Misinterpreted.
5. You are/Remain/NON-conversant on the issue/"[necessarily] "bored", because after merely posting and reposting "FAS" as answer to everything, you have Nothing to say.

additionally and new to this string:

6. One main problem being "Jurisdiction thereof" which is NOT clear/Complete in the case of Illegals or even for Legals.
The illegal immigrant Mother is Still subject to the Laws of Mexico and is, according to Mutual Treaty, EXTRADICTABLE back if she broke those laws.
(say for leaving the father while pregnant in a divorce or custody battle) or for Any Other legal reasons, including merely Illegally crossing Mexico's own border.

7. The Second Amendment gives the "Right to Bear Arms".
But this also does NOT need "repealing" to ban Machine Guns or Tanks, etc.

Just as a Flood of Bullets in the 2nd, a Flood of Illegal immigrants was NOT foreseen in the 14th (for freeing slaves), and so it can easily be further legislated to avoid the current problem, as we had to adjust several times in the case of American Indians, who got citizenship/birth citizenship Only by "MUTUAL CONSENT."
See my #102.

8. Many other Amendments are constantly further clarified/legislated in light of new circumstance.
(Patriot Act/4th, etc)

 

[Pollycy]

I would vote for, "Children born to citizens of the United States of America". That was not one of the choices, unfortunately.

The 14th Amendment was put into place to protect the birthright citizenship of freed American slaves who had been liberated during and after the American Civil War. It was never intended to be a citizenship and benefits "gravy train" for anybody who wanders in here illegally.

 

[Cephus]

I would vote for, "Children born to citizens of the United States of America". That was not one of the choices, unfortunately.

The 14th Amendment was put into place to protect the birthright citizenship of freed American slaves who had been liberated during and after the American Civil War. It was never intended to be a citizenship and benefits "gravy train" for anybody who wanders in here illegally.

That's because when it was written, we weren't a welfare state that attracted people from around the world who have their hands out and think they're entitled to a share of the wealth. It never would have occurred to the founding fathers that such a thing could ever happen. However, they wrote it the way they wrote it, the Supreme Court ruled on it the way they ruled on it and now we have to deal with the reality that actually is, not that we wish was.

 

[joG]

No it does Not.
I guess, because people do NOT read posts even in a string this short, I'll restate my position partially..

""Exactly right.
The Original Intent was NOT to harbor Illegal immigrants and give their offspring auto-citizenship.
It was about guaranteeing slaves citizenship.
The current situation was Not contemplated.
(Just like Congress Can NOW Ban some Types of Arms Despite the Second Amendment/despite the 'right to bear arms')​

So the Second Amendment is even more clear/Unconditional on the 'Right to Bear Arms', than the 14th is on Birth citizenship. The latter QUALIFIED by Jurisdiction thereof"..
yet one CANNOT even bear All/Any arms... either.

Make it a sweep!
Anagram also couldn't answer the Meat of my post... except to say his isn't duplicate.
Yup, 'Debatepolitics' is the usual 'skip post' and "blurt my position Despite it being already rebutted by intervening posts".

If you do not like the words it is totally okay to change them. There are well defined procedures for that. What is not okay, though, it is a method being increasingly and mostly deployed by a generation of new bigots against constitutional protection of the citizens is, what was popularly known as Newspeak. And that is scary, because it is so dangerous. We do not need laws, whose words' meaning is reinterpreted to fit the flavor of the month in the street.

 

[joG]

This thread confuses two separate things in its presentation.

It asks for poll purposes:

What is meant by the 14th Amendment?​

But titles the thread:

How do you read the 14th Amendment regarding Birthright Citizenship?​

Those two things are not the same.
How one reads may be based on their ignorance and not on actual knowledge of what was intended and meant.



What was intended and meant by those who Framed and adopted the 14th is not the same as people are reading it today because they do not understand the terminology used has a wider meaning than just subject to our laws, as in legal jurisdiction.
And apparently the OP specifically left out what that meant even though it had been amply provided in the other threads concerning this issue.
That makes the OP appear to be nothing other than a dishonest presentation.



Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull made it absolutely clear what was meant by the terminology used.

As he stated.

The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens". That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof."​

He then further clarifies.

"What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."​

That is what was intended and meant. Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

If a child is born of an alien from Mexico that child has citizenship from it's parents country and the US does not have complete jurisdiction, thus the 14th does not grant that child citizenship.

Anyone familiar with the other threads and agrees to the first option is being dishonest, as the meaning and intent is known.

"Something else" is the only correct answer to the question. As "Not owing allegiance to anybody else." is something other than was made available to answer

---

It does. Unfortunately folks do not understand what the terminology used means and assume something that it doesn't.





That is not what it says. Which has already been demonstrated multiple times in the other threads.

The terminology means; "Not owing allegiance to anybody else."

---

Wrong.

Of course you are right that language changes. If it does, than a law should be rewritten. Otherwise it should be interpreted to mean, what it say. So, as interesting as the manifold interpretation of what this guy wrote that one about this or that is extremely interesting, if the law says born in the USA, then it must leave very little room for the judge to decide. Like I argued with the First Amendment in other context, it is fine to change the Amendment. Allowing a new interpretation is not okay. It is horrific.

 

[Excon]

Allowing a new interpretation is not okay. It is horrific.

It would not be a new interpretation.
It would be the original meaning without interpretation.

 

[QuadpolarNutjob]

doesnt matter how i read it, what matters is how president trump reads it.

 

[joG]

It would not be a new interpretation.
It would be the original meaning without interpretation.

If the document does not mean, what the words say, it needs changing. having the words say one thing and the high priests saying they mean something else is just too quaint for high technology societies. So let it mean, what it says or change the words. But for God's sake don't allow the state such wide room for discretion. That type of sloppiness always comes home to haunt a country.

 

[Excon]

If the document does not mean, what the words say, it needs changing. having the words say one thing and the high priests saying they mean something else is just too quaint for high technology societies. So let it mean, what it says or change the words. But for God's sake don't allow the state such wide room for discretion. That type of sloppiness always comes home to haunt a country.

What the words say is what was meant at the time. Just because society let slip the meaning, doesn't mean the meaning still isn't there.
And as we have the Congressional Record of what was meant by the very author of the words that were added to the citizenship clause of the 14th we are able to know what was meant.
The words still mean the same thing they meant then.

"Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."​

That meaning hasn't changed.

 

[joG]

What the words say is what was meant at the time. Just because society let slip the meaning, doesn't mean the meaning still isn't there.
And as we have the Congressional Record of what was meant by the very author of the words that were added to the citizenship clause of the 14th we are able to know what was meant.
The words still mean the same thing they meant then.

"Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."​

That meaning hasn't changed.

And the newborn owes allegiance to someone else? It might develop so, but at the moment of birth the kid can have allegiance. It does not even suspect that such a thing exists. But you keep reverting to what explanations people wrote to each other. A contract must mean, what it says. And this one say born in the USA. So change it or leave it. But do not come along saying that this guy or the other meant something other than the formulation says.

 

[Excon]

I did. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf

No you didn't.
That is not a refutation.
It is a non-authoritative source which outright misstates the facts, and clearly left out what was said was meant by the author of the language inserted into the citizenship clause. That is direct subterfuge and yet you glom on to it. D'oh!

Which you obviously haven't read.

I'll bet 50 internet cents you still won't bother reading it.

Keep lying to yourself.
Even if I hadn't it wouldn't change the fact that your source is not authoritative.
What is ignorant is making such a claim when you have absolutely no information to say otherwise. I guess it is that flawed thinking that also leads you to believe what you provided was somehow authoritative when it isn't.

And for your edification, you obviously are not aware that I argued "natural born citizenship" as it applied to Sen. Cruz. Of course I have read and are more than familiar with this nonsense.

22 pages of analysis by the people from the Library of Congress who study and analyze legal and constitutional information for a living, and when asked by Members of Congress to assess pending bills, amendments, and other legislative matters.

You called them non-authoritative - and what you presented authoritative - then posted a snip from the authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

People? D'oh!
All it is, is a person's analysis.
And it misstates the facts and ignores what was actually said.

She states.

Although the primary aim was to secure citizenship for African Americans, the debates on the
citizenship provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment indicate that they were intended to extend U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of race, ethnicity or alienage of the parents. 37 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United
States.” 38​

This is a false statement by her and is proven false by the mere words she quoted. (See underlined.)
Illegals are subject to a foreign power. There children are also subject to that foreign power.


She also states

"..., they also argued that Indians were subject to U.S. jurisdiction for a variety of purposes so the “subject to the jurisdiction” language was insufficiently clear."​

That is another false statement as Senator Turnbull made it very clear that it meant "Not owing allegiance to anybody else."
This person is deliberately ignoring the Congressional Record of the Senator saying exactly what it meant.
As he made it known what was meant, it was not "insufficiently clear."
She left it out and didn't even mention that the Senator actually made it clear what was meant.
That makes her report nothing but subterfuge.


And no. I posted what was meant in regards to the Civil Rights Act and also posted what the Senator said the terminology he authored and inserted into the citizenship clause of the 14th meant.
It meant, "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

They were both provided to show that the meaning had not changed and that the same thing was meant. Is that really not clear to you?

Had you bothered to look at the source you called non-authoritative, you would have seen a goodly portion devoted to just that debate - to Sen. Trumbull's words, and what you and the other present day birthers cut off when quoting that line.

Cut off?
I have seen this argument made in relation to what the Senator said the terminology he used in the 14th, but that argument fails, as what came after was how the wording applied to Indians. Not that it didn't apply to others.

So what pray tell are you speaking of that was "cut off" in relation to the meaning of the wording in the Civil Rights Act?
What came after "not subject to any foreign power" that changes or modifies what that means?

But you'll still keep mooing.

Till the cows come home.

This is all you are doing.
Please continue. It is funny.

 

[Excon]

And the newborn owes allegiance to someone else? It might develop so, but at the moment of birth the kid can have allegiance. It does not even suspect that such a thing exists. But you keep reverting to what explanations people wrote to each other. A contract must mean, what it says. And this one say born in the USA. So change it or leave it. But do not come along saying that this guy or the other meant something other than the formulation says.

iLOL Contract? iLOL
At best what could be said is that there has been no meeting of the minds. But it isn't that type of "contract".

The meaning of the language used was made clear in the Congressional Record when the author of the language clearly indicated that it meant "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.".

The allegiance the child born owes is to the Country of it's parents citizenship where it too has citizenship. That is owing a foreign allegiance.

 

[joG]

iLOL Contract? iLOL
At best what could be said is that there has been no meeting of the minds. But it isn't that type of "contract".

The meaning of the language used was made clear in the Congressional Record when the author of the language clearly indicated that it meant "Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.".

The allegiance the child born owes is to the Country of it's parents citizenship where it too has citizenship. That is owing a foreign allegiance.

Constitutions are often referred to in the literature as the contract between the people and the state.

 

[oliveryty]

i approve it. 'Cause it is what the true freedom is.

 

[oliveryty]

It is what the United States of America attract people from all over the world. It is what make the USA a country above nations.