Is that your personal opinion, or do you have supportive documentation from those who authored, and helped to ratify the 14th Amendment?
Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." This guide provides access to digital collections, websites, and print materials related to the amendment.
guides.loc.gov
I see this argument all the time from the Trump nuts. It as if they really think it is difficult to go back and read the Congressional and Senate debates. And you get shit like this,
An overwhelming majority of the Congress that passed the 14th Amendment knew that foreigners and aliens were not subject to birthright citizenship.
americanmind.org
I mean the entire article is fabricated bullshit. I mean I will spoon-feed you.
May 30, 1866. John Conness, senator from Ohio. Look at the link, final column on that page, second paragraph down. Of all children born to whatever parentage, Asian, Gypsy, Black, in the United States, are automatically granted birthright citizenship. I mean read it further, go to the next page. That debate, on May 30, 1866. It clearly answers your question. It clearly explains how the Congress members at the time viewed birthright citizenship. I mean Cowan, Senator from Pennyslvania, voted against the amendment specifically because it would have granted citizenship to children born to gypsies. Yeah, ******* gypsies for Christ sake.
I mean this claim, that those that passed the 14th amendment through Congress, somehow didn't mean for it to apply to "anyone" born in the United States, that foreigners did not have that right, is historical revisionism of the worst kind. "Subject to the jurisdiction", I mean it is a simple clause, and a simple meaning. I understand, the links I left, I mean thousands of pages of reading. And the really cool part about it, I mean it is the official record, like the exact words they said. Like what happens in Congress, both the House and the Senate, to this very day.
But you do yourself a solid and dig into that single page link I left you, read the entire days debate that day. You can pull that from the first link I left. I mean you got Cowan, lamenting about "gypsies". Gypsies in Pennyslvania, 1866? Kind of mind boggling. Hell, much of the Civil War was fought in Pennyslvania, don't even get me started on the vultures of Gettysburg. And Cowan is worried about gypsies? Conness, he deadpans, "gypsies?' Then, like Senators still do, well not as much as they used to, but, Conness turns to his friend from Michigan, "you know anything about gypsies"? Comical almost the response, "Uh, duh, NO?" Conness moves on, fired up at this point.
In California, we got Mongolians. That was what they called the Asian immigrants, and not to be blunt, but those immigrants got screwed more than any of you guys. Irish, Germans, French. The Jews, who actually run a close second to those Asians into the Pacific coast, especially prior to WWII. And I suppose Conness was 150 years ahead of his time. But he begins by saying that all those Mongolians, they eventually return home. They might be dead, but they go back to be buried in their homeland.
And why would he say that? I mean for real, how is it germane to the discussion at hand. But then he comes out and says it. They work harder, are industrious, thrifty, They are smart. Smarter than us. The parents have no allegiance to us. They won't even be buried here. But yep, born here, citizen. I mean it is like Conness had a crystal ball, prefacing Wong. There was a stark difference between the two, Conness and Cowan But this discussion, about who birthright citizenship applies to, was handled than and there, in the final vote. And ratification by the states, who all knew full well the definition of "jurisdiction".
