Senator Howard mentions three classes: aliens, foreigners, and families of ambassadors. Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power; foreigners are overseas people temporarily in the country, as in tourists; ambassadors and ministers accredited to the U.S. government who are in the country to represent the interests of the foreign power that sent them are obviously "aliens" within Thomas Jefferson's meaning.
As were also the Indian tribes, who were regarded as giving their primary allegiance to their tribal governments — which meant they could not or would not give their primary allegiance to the United States.
The children of all four groups were considered ineligible for U.S. citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment at the time of its framing. It all boils down to the matter of allegiance to the United States.
The terms "alien" and "foreigner" are not simply synonyms. Each term has its own particular meaning. TJ's definition of "alien" is specific, exact; "foreigners" is more of a catch-all, generic term. But you conflate them.
Consider this observation from Jon Feere:
Although, as a result of federal statutory law, all native-born Indians are regarded as citizens today, at the time of the 14th Amendment Indian tribes were treated as foreign powers, and members of the tribe were presumed to owe their first allegiance to the tribe. [Thus they are "aliens" within TJ's meaning, and not simply "foreigners."] There was no need to refer specifically to Indian tribes in the Amendment because it simply stood to reason that, for an Indian, mere presence in the United States could not be treated as a transfer of allegiance from his tribe to the United States. Query whether, in the 21st century, it stands to reason that a French tourist who gives premature birth to a child during a two-week visit to Disney World should, by virtue of her presence in Orlando, be regarded as having forsaken her allegiance to France.This French lady is a "foreigner."
The fact that she is also an "alien" within Jefferson's meaning is irrelevant given this state of facts: A mere visit to Disneyland does not even raise the issue of a consensual transfer of allegiance from France to the United States.
Your reading of this issue appears to be rather shallow and devoid of simple common sense. Just because Thomas Jefferson was not alive at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted does not mean that his influence on these deliberations was not deeply felt. (And you cannot demonstrate that it was not.)
What you seem to be doing, dear CA Conservative, with your line of argument, is "creating a loophole for immigration attorneys to expand their business," as Hostage put it. These types are in the business of torturing texts to make them say whatever it is they want them to say. This "textual approach" completely obscures the underlying meaning and rationale of the 14th Amendment.
God knows we have enough of that sort of thing already.
CITIZEN....
A Citizen of ONE place and NOT of another place is Natural law.. easy to discover and not hard to understand..
UNLESS you change what the “WORD” citizen means..
Citizens are human, not dead, and member of a particular society and culture..
AND NOT members of a different society and culture, dead, or not human..
This is TRUE no matter who says otherwise..
Changeing the “WORD” citizen to something ELSE as stated above is aggression to your culture, society, nationality, and political well being..
And should met with armed resistance, to THIS ENEMY, must be arrested prosecuted and either HUNG or Shot.. or other wise removed from appeal to the Citizens..