Replies

The fact the founders changed it from the far more common and understood term "subject" to the far less common "citizen" show their intent that our system was modeled after the Swiss Republic, where the word had always been used in that manner since the 14th century.

The Swiss Republic did not exist in 1787.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history_of_Switzerland

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_as_a_federal_state

Formation of the Federal State (1848)
Following a 27-day civil war in Switzerland, the Sonderbundskrieg, the Swiss Federal Constitution was passed on 12 September 1848. The constitution was heavily influenced by the US Constitution and the ideas of the French Revolution. The constitution establishes the Swiss Confederation, governed by a comparatively strong federal government, instead the model of a confederation of independent cantons bound by treaties.

Wong Kim Ark at 169 U.S. 658-59:

It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established. In the early case of The Charming Betsy, (1804) it appears to have been assumed by this court that all persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States, Chief Justice Marshall saying: "Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide." 6 U. S. 2 Cranch 64, 6 U. S. 119.
In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

Congressional Globe, House, June 13, 1866, 39 Cong, 1st sess, pg 3148:

Representatives DEFREES and WRIGHT asked permission to print some remarks upon the question of agreeing to the 14A proposal. Without objection, their requests were granted. The entire proposal was then read, and the vote recorded, yeas 120, nays 32, not voting 32. Bingham voted Aye.

RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN

Thaddeus Stevens addressed each each section of the joint resolution. His comments on the first section as proposed by the Senate are below. Nobody else rose to comment on any section of the joint resolution.

A few words will suffice to explain the changes made by the Senate in the proposition which we sent them.
The, first section is altered by defining who are citizens of the United States and of the States. This is an excellent amendment, long needed to settle conflicting decisions between the several States and the United States. It declares this great privilege to belong to every person born or naturalized in the United States.

That is all the words said in House debate about the citizenship clause, by anybody. The recorded vote is on the next page near the top of the first column, immediately following the reading of the full 14A, which continued over to page 3149.

Page 3148: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=269

Congressional Globe at the Library of Congress

Page 3149: https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=270

Senate Debate on Civil Rights Act of 1866 authored by Sen. Trumbull

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=603

Mr. TRUMBULL. I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Mr. COWAN. I think not.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid 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.
Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.

Regardless of what anyone may have said, or be misinterpreted as saying, or just wrongly imagined to have said, the 14th Amendment established a constitutional standard of citizenship which overruled or struck down anything which can be misinterpreted or imagined to have been contrary to the 14th Amendment.

In the Senate, Sen. Jacob Howard offered an amendment to the Bingham bill to include a citizenship clause of Sen. Howard's drafting. Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866, page 2890, column 2, near the bottom.

The words proposed by Sen. Jacob Howard were incorporated into the Constitution via Section I of the 14th Amendment in 1868 — "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."

As shown by the introduction of the 14A citizenship clause by Mr. Howard, his intent of the clause was quite clear and specific.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]
Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. 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. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.