Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included

[Montrovant]

If the amendment writers were alive today, perhaps they would have worded it differently. Then again, that could be said about just about all our constitutional amendments. What the amendment says is that being born here, unless you are the child of a diplomat or other foreign representative not subject to US jurisdiction, makes you a US citizen.

There's no reason a new amendment cannot be made to change that so the children of illegal immigrants do not gain citizenship by being born here.

And you are free to try and do so. It looks like this:

"In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has
determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date
of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the
United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent
resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of
which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is
entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country,
shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign
country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the
meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen
of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence
within the United States at the moment of birth.”

If I were unduly upset by the children of illegal immigrants being granted citizenship, perhaps I would try. As it is, I don't especially care.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the amendment writers were alive today, perhaps they would have worded it differently. Then again, that could be said about just about all our constitutional amendments. What the amendment says is that being born here, unless you are the child of a diplomat or other foreign representative not subject to US jurisdiction, makes you a US citizen.

There's no reason a new amendment cannot be made to change that so the children of illegal immigrants do not gain citizenship by being born here.

And you are free to try and do so. It looks like this:

"In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has
determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date
of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the
United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent
resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of
which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is
entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country,
shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign
country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the
meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen
of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence
within the United States at the moment of birth.”

If I were unduly upset by the children of illegal immigrants being granted citizenship, perhaps I would try. As it is, I don't especially care.

Neither do most sane people...

 

[Dad2three]

The left will ignore it but Trump is correct.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included… This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Following the release of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policies, a national debate has been sparked regarding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the idea of birthright citizenship.

Many have argued that the 14th Amendment infers automatic citizenship upon any person born within the United States, even if the person’s parents are in the country illegally.

This has led to the use of the term “anchor babies” to describe such persons, as the citizenship they are granted upon birth acts as an anchor to keep the family from being deported, despite their lack of legal status.

But that simply isn’t what was intended by the 14th Amendment, as proven by the words of the very man who authored the amendment in 1866, Michigan Sen. Jacob M. Howard.

Howard explained in writing exactly what the scope of the law was when he introduced it, making it quite clear that it was referring to granting citizenship to the recently freed slaves only, not foreigners or even Native Americans.

According to The Federalist Papers Project, Howard wrote, in part, “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.”

But Howard continued, “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.”

The 14th Amendment was created to confer citizenship upon only the former slaves who had recently been freed during the Civil War. It was not intended to be make a citizen of any person who just so happened to be born on U.S. soil to foreign parents in the country, legally or otherwise.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included... This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners


Former Thomas clerk: Repeal proponents' interpretation of Howard's statement "renders completely meaningless the subsequent dialogue," and "nothing" indicates "drafters intended to draw distinctions between different categories of aliens." James C. Ho, the solicitor general of Texas who previously clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, worked in the Bush administration, and served as chief counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), wrote in 2006 that "no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children" and "nothing in text or history suggests that the drafters intended to draw distinctions between different categories of aliens." Ho further wrote:

Repeal proponents contend that history supports their position.

First, they quote Howard's introductory remarks to state that birthright citizenship "will not, of course, include ... foreigners." But that reads Howard's reference to "aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" out of the sentence. It also renders completely meaningless the subsequent dialogue between Senators Cowan and Conness over the wisdom of extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants and Gypsies.

Legal scholar Garrett Epps: Restrictionist reading of Howard's statement is "strained."



CRS: Congress "intended to extend U.S. citizenship" to everyone born in the U.S. regardless of "alienage of the parents." The Congressional Research Service (CRS) stated in a September 2005 report:

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.

Supreme Court rejected claim that child born in the U.S. to foreigners was not a citizen.

OOPS

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of "foreigners"?

 

[Dad2three]

An oft-repeated claim by opponents of birthright citizenship is that the Citizenship Clause was intended to exclude "foreigners" from its guarantee of automatic citizenship. In support of this claim, they cite a statement by Senator Howard, who introduced the language of the Citizenship Clause, in which he noted that the amendment would "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."

This statement does not prove the anti-citizenship advocates' claim. Senator Howard's description of the only class of children born on U.S. soil who would not be U.S. citizens automatically at birth was merely a summary of the widely accepted understanding that children of diplomats would not be birthright citizens. This is because of the legal fiction that diplomats, while physically present here, remain in a sense on the home ground of their country--hence the concept of diplomatic immunity. Senator Howard used the terms "foreigners" and "aliens" in the sentence quoted above to describe those "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States." If Howard was intending to list several categories of excluded persons (e.g., foreigners, aliens or families of diplomats) he could have said so. Instead, the language he used strongly suggests he was describing a single excluded class, limited to families of diplomats.

This interpretation of the Reconstruction Framers' views on the classes of persons excluded from birthright citizenship is clarified by a statement made just six days prior to Senator Howard's introduction of the Citizenship Clause. In an exchange on the Senate floor, Senator Wade acknowledged a colleague's suggestion that some persons born on U.S. soil might not be automatically granted citizenship, stating "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." He went on to explain that children of foreign ministers were exempt not because of an "allegiance" or consent reason, but because there is a legal fiction that they do not actually reside on U.S. soil: "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."

In light of the legislative history described above, it is highly unlikely that Senator Howard's comment regarding foreign diplomats means what opponents to birthright citizenship claim. A single comment plucked out of context should not be used to sweep aside the overwhelming text, history, and principles that point to the opposite conclusion.

IA Radio Host Jan "What's Wrong With Slavery?" Mickelson Misreads History To Cast Doubt On Birthright Citizenship

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A single comment plucked out of context should not be used to sweep aside the overwhelming text, history, and principles that point to the opposite conclusion.

His intention or not, the Supreme Court has already decided this matter.

 

[David_42]

A single comment plucked out of context should not be used to sweep aside the overwhelming text, history, and principles that point to the opposite conclusion.

His intention or not, the Supreme Court has already decided this matter.

Apparently the supreme court doesn't matter when righties can't enforce christian sharia..

 

[frigidweirdo]

The left will ignore it but Trump is correct.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included… This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Following the release of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policies, a national debate has been sparked regarding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the idea of birthright citizenship.

Many have argued that the 14th Amendment infers automatic citizenship upon any person born within the United States, even if the person’s parents are in the country illegally.

This has led to the use of the term “anchor babies” to describe such persons, as the citizenship they are granted upon birth acts as an anchor to keep the family from being deported, despite their lack of legal status.

But that simply isn’t what was intended by the 14th Amendment, as proven by the words of the very man who authored the amendment in 1866, Michigan Sen. Jacob M. Howard.

Howard explained in writing exactly what the scope of the law was when he introduced it, making it quite clear that it was referring to granting citizenship to the recently freed slaves only, not foreigners or even Native Americans.

According to The Federalist Papers Project, Howard wrote, in part, “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.”

But Howard continued, “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.”

The 14th Amendment was created to confer citizenship upon only the former slaves who had recently been freed during the Civil War. It was not intended to be make a citizen of any person who just so happened to be born on U.S. soil to foreign parents in the country, legally or otherwise.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included... This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Then he should have written it better, shouldn't he?

 

[David_42]

The left will ignore it but Trump is correct.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included… This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Following the release of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policies, a national debate has been sparked regarding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the idea of birthright citizenship.

Many have argued that the 14th Amendment infers automatic citizenship upon any person born within the United States, even if the person’s parents are in the country illegally.

This has led to the use of the term “anchor babies” to describe such persons, as the citizenship they are granted upon birth acts as an anchor to keep the family from being deported, despite their lack of legal status.

But that simply isn’t what was intended by the 14th Amendment, as proven by the words of the very man who authored the amendment in 1866, Michigan Sen. Jacob M. Howard.

Howard explained in writing exactly what the scope of the law was when he introduced it, making it quite clear that it was referring to granting citizenship to the recently freed slaves only, not foreigners or even Native Americans.

According to The Federalist Papers Project, Howard wrote, in part, “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.”

But Howard continued, “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.”

The 14th Amendment was created to confer citizenship upon only the former slaves who had recently been freed during the Civil War. It was not intended to be make a citizen of any person who just so happened to be born on U.S. soil to foreign parents in the country, legally or otherwise.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included... This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Then he should have written it better, shouldn't he?

The courts have already interpreted it. The butthurt xenophobic OP is irrelevant.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Maybe he should have been clear in writing his amendment

The courts do not think so

Since when did right or left wing leaning courts pay attention to what the amendment says ?

They've done a thorough job of bending things whatever way suites them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The left will ignore it but Trump is correct.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included… This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Following the release of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policies, a national debate has been sparked regarding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the idea of birthright citizenship.

Many have argued that the 14th Amendment infers automatic citizenship upon any person born within the United States, even if the person’s parents are in the country illegally.

This has led to the use of the term “anchor babies” to describe such persons, as the citizenship they are granted upon birth acts as an anchor to keep the family from being deported, despite their lack of legal status.

But that simply isn’t what was intended by the 14th Amendment, as proven by the words of the very man who authored the amendment in 1866, Michigan Sen. Jacob M. Howard.

Howard explained in writing exactly what the scope of the law was when he introduced it, making it quite clear that it was referring to granting citizenship to the recently freed slaves only, not foreigners or even Native Americans.

According to The Federalist Papers Project, Howard wrote, in part, “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.”

But Howard continued, “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.”

The 14th Amendment was created to confer citizenship upon only the former slaves who had recently been freed during the Civil War. It was not intended to be make a citizen of any person who just so happened to be born on U.S. soil to foreign parents in the country, legally or otherwise.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included... This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Then he should have written it better, shouldn't he?

The courts have already interpreted it. The butthurt xenophobic OP is irrelevant.

Well interpretation changes. This is the thing. If future courts decide something is relevant then it could change.

 

[David_42]

The left will ignore it but Trump is correct.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included… This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Following the release of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policies, a national debate has been sparked regarding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the idea of birthright citizenship.

Many have argued that the 14th Amendment infers automatic citizenship upon any person born within the United States, even if the person’s parents are in the country illegally.

This has led to the use of the term “anchor babies” to describe such persons, as the citizenship they are granted upon birth acts as an anchor to keep the family from being deported, despite their lack of legal status.

But that simply isn’t what was intended by the 14th Amendment, as proven by the words of the very man who authored the amendment in 1866, Michigan Sen. Jacob M. Howard.

Howard explained in writing exactly what the scope of the law was when he introduced it, making it quite clear that it was referring to granting citizenship to the recently freed slaves only, not foreigners or even Native Americans.

According to The Federalist Papers Project, Howard wrote, in part, “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.”

But Howard continued, “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.”

The 14th Amendment was created to confer citizenship upon only the former slaves who had recently been freed during the Civil War. It was not intended to be make a citizen of any person who just so happened to be born on U.S. soil to foreign parents in the country, legally or otherwise.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included... This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Then he should have written it better, shouldn't he?

The courts have already interpreted it. The butthurt xenophobic OP is irrelevant.

Well interpretation changes. This is the thing. If future courts decide something is relevant then it could change.

I know this, and I doubt the interpretation will change.

 

[nuhuh]

The argument and disagreement surrounding the XIV Amendment are interesting, but a waste of time. Article III, Section II, creates the broad rules which allow Congress to define and correct this problem, it is Congress that sets and lays down the rules of citizenship literally defining every aspect of citizenship. Section V of the XIVth Amendment expressly envisions Congress in a leadership role defining and enforcing the provisions set fort in the XIVth Amendment.

We don't need to endure the difficulty of getting an Amendment to the Constitution passed, all the power and enforcement already exists within the Congress. All you need is a president(and with necessary votes, don't even require a president) and a Senate as willing collaborators to get something done.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The left will ignore it but Trump is correct.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included… This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Following the release of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposed immigration policies, a national debate has been sparked regarding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and the idea of birthright citizenship.

Many have argued that the 14th Amendment infers automatic citizenship upon any person born within the United States, even if the person’s parents are in the country illegally.

This has led to the use of the term “anchor babies” to describe such persons, as the citizenship they are granted upon birth acts as an anchor to keep the family from being deported, despite their lack of legal status.

But that simply isn’t what was intended by the 14th Amendment, as proven by the words of the very man who authored the amendment in 1866, Michigan Sen. Jacob M. Howard.

Howard explained in writing exactly what the scope of the law was when he introduced it, making it quite clear that it was referring to granting citizenship to the recently freed slaves only, not foreigners or even Native Americans.

According to The Federalist Papers Project, Howard wrote, in part, “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.”

But Howard continued, “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.”

The 14th Amendment was created to confer citizenship upon only the former slaves who had recently been freed during the Civil War. It was not intended to be make a citizen of any person who just so happened to be born on U.S. soil to foreign parents in the country, legally or otherwise.

Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains Who It Included... This Is Going to Devastate Liberals

Then he should have written it better, shouldn't he?

The courts have already interpreted it. The butthurt xenophobic OP is irrelevant.

Well interpretation changes. This is the thing. If future courts decide something is relevant then it could change.

I know this, and I doubt the interpretation will change.

You doubt it but you don't know. Talking about whether it could change and what it could change to is a perfectly legitimate thing to discuss, especially on a site like this.

 

[Camp]

The argument and disagreement surrounding the XIV Amendment are interesting, but a waste of time. Article III, Section II, creates the broad rules which allow Congress to define and correct this problem, it is Congress that sets and lays down the rules of citizenship literally defining every aspect of citizenship. Section V of the XIVth Amendment expressly envisions Congress in a leadership role defining and enforcing the provisions set fort in the XIVth Amendment.

We don't need to endure the difficulty of getting an Amendment to the Constitution passed, all the power and enforcement already exists within the Congress. All you need is a president(and with necessary votes, don't even require a president) and a Senate as willing collaborators to get something done.

Section 5 gives congress power to enforce the amendment, not to define it.

 

[nuhuh]

The argument and disagreement surrounding the XIV Amendment are interesting, but a waste of time. Article III, Section II, creates the broad rules which allow Congress to define and correct this problem, it is Congress that sets and lays down the rules of citizenship literally defining every aspect of citizenship. Section V of the XIVth Amendment expressly envisions Congress in a leadership role defining and enforcing the provisions set fort in the XIVth Amendment.

We don't need to endure the difficulty of getting an Amendment to the Constitution passed, all the power and enforcement already exists within the Congress. All you need is a president(and with necessary votes, don't even require a president) and a Senate as willing collaborators to get something done.

Section 5 gives congress power to enforce the amendment, not to define it.

Congress has all the power to pass laws that address the issue. I agree, Section V merely defines enforcement of the Amendment. The point is that debate over what a Senator said 150 years ago, has zero influence on a court interpreting its provisions. It would be easier to pass a new law than it would be to get a court to agree or pass a new Amendment.

 

[BULLDOG]

Great, only that doesn't matter a fuckin' damn, just what the Supreme Court has ruled. Hate the little brown Americans all you like, they aren't going anywhere. We don't deport our own, naturalized citizens can be another case, and no other nation is interested in letting little brown American citizens just walk right in...

is the Supreme Court always right

Nope, I don't think they are always right. It's hard to be more wrong than their decision on Citizens United, but that doesn't really matter. They have the authority to make those calls, and you or I disagreeing doesn't count.

 

[JQPublic1]

Great, only that doesn't matter a fuckin' damn, just what the Supreme Court has ruled. Hate the little brown Americans all you like, they aren't going anywhere. We don't deport our own, naturalized citizens can be another case, and no other nation is interested in letting little brown American citizens just walk right in...

So It's interesting when the Libs scream that the second ammendment was never intended to allow modern day Americans to own guns but the Supremes say otherwise.

After it's all said and done it's all about the interpretation

Yep, but what they say is constitutional, is, and what they say isn't, isn't...

That is very true and I agree. One thing tho:' Do you know if the SCOTUS decision was unamimous or was it 5-4?

 

[BULLDOG]

Great, only that doesn't matter a fuckin' damn, just what the Supreme Court has ruled. Hate the little brown Americans all you like, they aren't going anywhere. We don't deport our own, naturalized citizens can be another case, and no other nation is interested in letting little brown American citizens just walk right in...

So It's interesting when the Libs scream that the second ammendment was never intended to allow modern day Americans to own guns but the Supremes say otherwise.

After it's all said and done it's all about the interpretation

Yep, but what they say is constitutional, is, and what they say isn't, isn't...

That is very true and I agree. One thing tho:' Do you know if the SCOTUS decision was unamimous or was it 5-4?

A 5-4 decision is just as valid as unanimous decision. There isn't a sliding scale on rulings.

 

[OKTexas]

i hate when the gop tries to define words.....

Congress defined the word at the time the bill was adopted, the court refused to accept that definition as legislative intent, where that's all they preached about in the latest ACA decision. 5 unelected lawyers have been redefining our country to their own vision for well more than a hundred years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1819

congress enacted federal legislation relating specifically to immigration

1- established the continuing reporting of immigration to the United States

2-set specific sustenance rules for passengers of ships leavingUnited States ports for Europe

That's not really anything about who was legal or illegal when they set foot on US soil from another country.