"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Herodotus]

You re right that the text will be paramount and there is no dispute what those words meant. However, you are simply wrong to say Howard said children of aliens were excluded. The quote that is cited simply does not say that and Howards later statements make clear that was not his position. Even the article posted by OG1 points out that Howard quote is ambiguous and capable of several interpretations but it nowhere talks of children of foreigners or aliens.

 

[Syriusly]

To every person subject to the laws of the land, and that means aliens, too.

Where does it say that being subject to our laws means you get birthright citizenship for your kids if you are here illegally? Subject to our jurisdiction isn't just about our laws.

Actually it is.

 

[Syriusly]

To every person subject to the laws of the land, and that means aliens, too.

Where does it say that being subject to our laws means you get birthright citizenship for your kids if you are here illegally? Subject to our jurisdiction isn't just about our laws.

Everyone born in the jurisdiction of the united States is a citizen- and the Supreme Court has said illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

 

[Syriusly]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

====

Oldglory1, your dissent means nothing.

It' not about my dissent. You posted it right there. "AND" subject to the jurisdiction. Can't you read? I asked if you would join our movement to end this nonsense and you didn't even reply. I have no choice but to put you in the dust bin along with the others who don't care about pulling for a positive change to put respect back into our citizenship and to save us billions in tax dollars. Parents who had no respect for our immigration laws should not gain citizenship for their kids just because they managed to breach our borders. Bye, bye.

All persons born on US soil are under the jurisdiction of the US. Every person in the US... other than a diplomat is under jurisdiction of the US and the US Constitution. Name one person in the US right now that is not under under its Jurisdiction?

Nope, they only have to obey our laws while here. They are not under our jurisdiction in any other way. Illegal aliens are not under our jurisdiction they are subject to their own countries full jurisdiction..

The Supreme Court has definitively said otherwise

Everyone born in the jurisdiction of the united States is a citizen- and the Supreme Court has said illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States.
(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.

But you won't read this.

Because you don't want to see opinions that disagree with your own.

 

[Syriusly]

Ok, I'll ask again. Since we disagree on the meaning of the 14th let's set that aside. Are you prepared to join the movement to end this travesty which is costing us billions of tax dollars and making a mockery out of citizenship via illegal immigration? After all, there already has been several Amendments to our original Constitution (even though that isn't what is needed in this case). If not, what are your reasons then? If you can't give a viable reason then off to the dust bin you go with the rest of the anti-Americans in here.

Oldglory keeps arguing about his bizarre interpretation of jurisidiction- and then tells everyone- "lets stop talking about this and talk about what I want to- and if you don't- you are anti-American'.

Nothing is more un-American than wanting to treat American citizens unfairly.

And yes- anyone born in the United States is an American citizen.

 

[Herodotus]

To every person subject to the laws of the land, and that means aliens, too.

Where does it say that being subject to our laws means you get birthright citizenship for your kids if you are here illegally? Subject to our jurisdiction isn't just about our laws.

Since you are fond of citing Senator Howard (though inaccurately), why not ask him. When introducing the relevant citizenship language from the committe he said it was simply declaratory of what the law already was. What did he way the law already was:

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws....." Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

Pretty clear and exactly what Wong Kim Ark said it meant. Have you found any legal treatise anywhere that says legal or illegal aliens are not fully subject to our jurisdiction. I think not. Any treatise saying an illegal aliens is subject to a foreign jurisdiction. Again, I think not. If you want to make statements of what the law is, you need to back them up to be taken seriously.

 

[Flopper]

Show us where Howard excluded children of foreigners or aliens. Give us the quote. The quote you cite simply does not say what you claim it says if one can read English. Lying about it does not help your argument. I showed you Howard expressly stating that only children of ambassadors were excluded from the jus soli rule and that jus soli was the universal rule. He also said one must only be "subject to our laws" which is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. Sorry if you can't deal with the truth.

And sorry that you can't comprehend the article that I posted. Into the dust bin you go with the rest of the pro-illegal sympathizers in here.

So apparently you can't show actual language that Howard said children of aliens were not citizens because he never said that. Why do you not address his much clearer quotes saying you are wrong such as

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

What do you not understand about this? You do know that Congress specifically discussed whether children of chlnese aliens would be made citizens and nobody argued that they would be excluded. Why not look at the quotes directly addressing the issue of you are interested in the original intent.

You re right that the text will be paramount and there is no dispute what those words meant. However, you are simply wrong to say Howard said children of aliens were excluded. The quote that is cited simply does not say that and Howards later statements make clear that was not his position. Even the article posted by OG1 points out that Howard quote is ambiguous and capable of several interpretations but it nowhere talks of children of foreigners or aliens.

Are you referring to the quote highlighted below? If so, you're absolutely correct. I misread it as did a number of other people. All Howard is saying is that the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers that are born in the US are exclude, not the children of foreigners.

I think the problem occurs because people are reading the phrase, "who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors..." are neglecting the fact that the 2nd pronoun, who is referring to foreigner or aliens.

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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.

 

[Herodotus]

I would add that focusing so much on Howard doesn't make sense either. He didn't write the language. He reported it out of Committee. The language appeared in a newspaper months earlier and was brought to the Committee by an outsider. Accordingly, Howard's opinion should have no more weight than anyone else who spoke on the issue in Congress.

Finally, how are children of illegal aliens different than the multitude of slaves who were born to parents brought here illegally. Importing slaves had been illegal for a half century prior to the Amendment, but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period. Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally. No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.

 

[Syriusly]

I would add that focusing so much on Howard doesn't make sense either. He didn't write the language. He reported it out of Committee. The language appeared in a newspaper months earlier and was brought to the Committee by an outsider. Accordingly, Howard's opinion should have no more weight than anyone else who spoke on the issue in Congress.

Finally, how are children of illegal aliens different than the multitude of slaves who were born to parents brought here illegally. Importing slaves had been illegal for a half century prior to the Amendment, but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period. Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally. No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.

That is a fascinating point- and one I had not considered:

but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period. Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally. No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.

Great point- thanks for pointing that out- because yes- there were slaves that were illegally smuggled into the United States prior to emancipation- and yes- technically they would be 'illegal aliens'.

 

[Flopper]

I would add that focusing so much on Howard doesn't make sense either. He didn't write the language. He reported it out of Committee. The language appeared in a newspaper months earlier and was brought to the Committee by an outsider. Accordingly, Howard's opinion should have no more weight than anyone else who spoke on the issue in Congress.

Finally, how are children of illegal aliens different than the multitude of slaves who were born to parents brought here illegally. Importing slaves had been illegal for a half century prior to the Amendment, but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period. Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally. No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.

That is a fascinating point- and one I had not considered:

but large numbers of slaves continued to be brought into the country illegally during such period. Thus, many of the freed slaves the Amendment was unquestionably designed to make citizens had parents who were brought here illegally. No one raised such issue as obviously they were subject to our jurisdiction no matter what the legal status of their parents.

Great point- thanks for pointing that out- because yes- there were slaves that were illegally smuggled into the United States prior to emancipation- and yes- technically they would be 'illegal aliens'.

Citizenship in first half of the 19th century had little resemblance to citizenship today. There were few government records kept on who entered the country. You usually became a US citizen by becoming a citizen of a state but the rules varied between states. There were few benefits of being a citizens and few obligations. Thus, many people who came to the states and territories never became citizens because there was little reason to do and no penalty for not doing so. With the freeing of slaves, Indians living in US territories and states, immigration of the Chinese, and states changing citizenship laws, the question of who are citizens of the United States begged for a simple elegant answer. The 14th amendment did just that. If you were born in the US you were a US citizen.

 

[Oldglory1]

Good read. The pro-illegals in here will just ignore it though.

Birthright Citizenship -- A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment Fox News

 

[Herodotus]

Wow, fox news, great source. You can keep re-posting people making the same arguments that the Supreme Court rejected 115 years ago, but that will not change the law. These arguments lost because they were not supported by the legislative history of the Amendment, were contrary to the plain language of the Amendment, were contrary to the international law of jurisdiction and were contrary to every could case in US history on who is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. I understand some people have agendas on illegal aliens and want to resurrect these old, rejected and discarded arguments, but such doesn't make these rejected arguments any better. There are few areas of law where there is not some fringe group saying all the courts are wrong and they are right. Such people are ignored until they can actually make a real legal argument.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?

What about the risk of all the Chinese mothers flying in to birth their babies in America?
Based on population of Chinese alone, what risk does that pose?

 

[Flopper]

I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?

What about the risk of all the Chinese mothers flying in to birth their babies in America?
Based on population of Chinese alone, what risk does that pose?

Chinese are the largest ethnic group within Asian-Americans. They have the lowest divorce rate of any racial group (3 percent), the lowest rate of teen-age pregnancy (6 percent), the highest median family income ($35,900) and the lowest rate of unemployment (3.5 percent). In addition Asian-American high school graduates had the highest college enrollment rate, at 92.2 percent, followed by white graduates (69.2 percent) I don't see how more Chinese Americans are a liability, more likely they are an asset to America.

.Demographics of Asian Americans - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Syriusly]

I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?

What about the risk of all the Chinese mothers flying in to birth their babies in America?
Based on population of Chinese alone, what risk does that pose?

Why are you asking us that question?

What is the harm to you specifically?

 

[Oldglory1]

I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?

What about the risk of all the Chinese mothers flying in to birth their babies in America?
Based on population of Chinese alone, what risk does that pose?

That needs to stop also. Re-interpreting the 14th on birthright citizenship as it was meant to be would do the trick.

 

[Herodotus]

The 39th congress and the next 2 or 3 Congresses discussed the issue of Chinese immigrants at length. Some were worried about hordes of Chinese coming into the country. The limitations discussed always related to people born in China. No one suggested that the Amendment did not cover Chinese children born here. One Senator opposed the Amendment specifically because he was told it covered children of Chinese aliens. No one really thought about Chinese mothers flying in to have births here as such didn't happen in those days.

However, there were some people at such time who wanted to exclude children of temporary residents. Such was not the law prior to 1866 and such was rejected when brought up in the debates on the 14th Amendment. Such exception could also not fall within the plain language of the amendment as all persons here temporarily are obviously subject to our jurisdiction.

“[e]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, pg. 202 (1886);

“All persons found within the limits of a government, (unless specially excepted by the law of nations,) whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.” Henry Halleck, Elements of International Law and Laws of War, pg. 92 (1885)

“Territorial jurisdiction attached (with special exceptions) upon all persons either permanently or temporarily resident within the territory while they were within it, but it did not follow them after they had withdrawn from it and when they were living in another independent country.” Sir William Henry Rattigan. Private International Law, pg. 228 (1895).

 

[Herodotus]

Since you won't do your own research, from members of the 39th Congress:

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

"I have always believed that every person, of whatever race or color, who was born within the United States was a citizen of the United States...The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside "near" the United States in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States." Senator Wade, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess.2768-69 (1866).

"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, 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. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the propositionto declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.” Senator Conness, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2890 (1866).

“This provision, I maintain, is merely declaratory of what the law is now…..The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone - natural born and naturalized citizens." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

"The term 'citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term 'subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a 'subject of the king' is now 'a citizen of the State.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1117 (1866).

"On this question of citizenship, Mr. Marcy, while he was Secretary of State, in a note dated March 6, 1854, expressed himself as follows: 'Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expedience of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet, I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien, at the time of its birth." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1116 (1866).

"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

“This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee and by the authorities he has cited ….. In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866).

“That amendment in its first clause is but a copy of the civil rights act, declaring that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States. This had been previously declared by act of Congress, and it was so without any act of Congress. Every person born within the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. Such persons are called subjects of the Crown in Great Britain, in this country citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American citizenship existed from the moment that the Government of the United States was formed. The Constitution itself prohibits any person from sitting in this body who has not been nine years a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of a particular State. By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons."Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)“The President also has an objection to making citizens of Chinese and Gypsies. I am told that few Chinese are born in this country, and where the Gypsies are born I never know…… And, as is suggested by a Senator-behind me, even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father." Senator Trumbull (reply to President Johnsons's Veto), Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1757 (1866)

"[t]he children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Senator Trumbull, CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

"I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."' Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866) "

"Undoubtably." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)(in reply to Sen. Cowen's question whether the Civil Rights Act will have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese aliens and Gypsies born in this country).

“It was believed by myself and many others that all native born persons since the abolition of slavery were citizens of the United States. This was the opinion of Mr. Bates, the Attorney General during the Lincoln administration, the opinion adopted by his administration and acted upon since by all departments of the Executive Government, including Secretary of state, which has issued passports to persons of color recognizing them as citizens. It was the opinion expressed by Mr. Marcy when Secretary of State that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States not referring of course to slaves…” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1757 (1866)

"The Amendments to the Constitution now pending seek to make citizens of the United States of all men born in the country of lawful age...It makes citizens not only of the pet negro but also of the filthy Chinese." Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 3rd Session, 40th Congress pg. 1067 (1868).

“What I said then, I say now, that as far as the United States are concerned, all person born within the limits of the United States are to be considered as citizens, and that without reference to color or race….. Now, what does this bill propose? All born within the United States are to be considered citizens of the United States, and as such shall have in every State all the rights that belong to anybody else in the State as far as the particular subjects stated in the bill are concerned” Senator Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1780 (1866).

“and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States." Sen. Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 2893 (1866).

"The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States.... Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President..." Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).

 

[Herodotus]

Here re some more:


"I assumed that by the amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, the slaves being made free became citizens entitled to all the rights, civil and political, of other American citizens. I maintained that if the offspring of a man from a foreign country became a citizen and entitled to vote, because a man happened to be born in America and was black, that did not disfranchise him." Mr. Yates, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1004 (1869)

"This bill provides that all persons born within the United States, excepting those that do not owe allegiance to the United States government, as children of ambassadors of foreign powers, and such are not subject to our laws, and Indians not taxed who owe a tribal allegiance, are citizens of the United States.” Rep. Cook, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1124 (1866).

“If Congress possesses the power to adopt such a law, then all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, except Indians not taxed, of whatever race or color, are citizens of the United States, and entitled to full protection as such. And all state Constitutions and State laws making any discrimination against negroes, mulattoes, Indians that are taxed, Chinamen or gypsies, on account of their color or race, are null and void. Mr. Niblack, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 3215 (1866).

"It is a principle of universal law that every person born in a country, and not a slave, is a citizen or subject of such country, and unless excluded by special laws is entitled to all privileges or citizens or subjects. ” Sen. Davis, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. pg. 182 of Appendix (1866)

"It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State. They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State. Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or not. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law." Rep. Thayer, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1152 (1866).

“Mr. Justice Curtis held that the Constitution of the United States assumes that citizenship can be acquired by nativity. That is the common law, that is the law of the civilized world, that he who is born in a country, and not made a slave at the moment of birth by any municipal law, becomes, by virtue of his birth, a citizen…” Senator Johnson, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1776 (1866).

"The honorable Senator from Kentucky...forgets this general process of nations and or nature by which every man, by his birth, is entitled to citizenship, and upon the general principle that he owes allegiance to the country of his birth, and that country owes him protection. That is the foundation, in my understanding, of all citizenship..." Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. p. 570 (1866).

“Why, all the world knows, the most unlettered of our people understand, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of any nation, or naturalized under its laws, is, by virtue of those facts alone, a citizen of that country in the fullest and amplest sense of the term.” Rep. Kerr., Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 2, pg. 47 of appendix (1871).

"Now where is the authority to except the native-born African from the application of the general rule of law that every native shall be a citizen of the country on whose soil he is born?" Rep. Raymond, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1266 (1866).

"As a positive enactment this would hardly seem necessary....What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?'' Congressman Broomall, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 1262 (1866).

“We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86." Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).

"The Constitution in speaking of natural-born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations and as old as political societies themselves, that the people born in the country constitute the nation, and as individuals are natural members of the body-politic. If this be a true principle, and I hardly think it will be denied, it follows that every person born in the country is at the time of birth prima facie a citizen ; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great dis-franchisement strong enough to override the "natural-born" right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color or any other accidental circumstance. That nativity furnishes the rule both of duty and of right as between the individual and the Government is a historical and political truthso old and so universally accepted that it is useless to prove it by authority. In every civilized country the individual is born to duties and rights—the duty of allegiance and the right to protection." Rep. Bowen. The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 3. pg. 96 (1869)(Rep. Bowen was a member of the 4-th Congress that passed the Expatriation Act.)

 

[Herodotus]

How many more quotes saying you are wrong would you like?