Didn't take as long as I thought it might. Here's one.
John Bingham is not amused with you.
John Bingham (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens. There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
John Bingham is not amused with you. That's funny. I can hear him calling to you, saying "Hey, DumbDumb, those portions are where I was talking about the specific problem of INDIANS!"
But you, true to form, ducked my point about how the opinions of the draftsmen of the language at issue take precedence. Sen. Jacob Howard drafted the "born . . . in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction" language. Let us consult his views:
"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..... They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States, as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Sen. Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765 (1866).
Notice? By virtue of "natural law" all persons born within the jurisdiction of a country are "subjects or citizens." As I've pointed out to you previously, this leave no question that Howard is applying the same "existing law" jus soli under both England and the U.S.
And what about Sen. Trumbull, draftsman of the corresponding Civil Rights Act citizenship clause:
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the 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?" Sen. 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)
"I have already said that in my opinion birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States, and that the bill now under consideration is but declaratory of what the law now is." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)
Yep, the "natural born citizen" rule was jus soli as to the native born for Sen. Trumbull, too. And over in the House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Chairman Wilson states:
"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."
Rawle, Blackstone. Is Bingham saying anything contrary? Not when understood in context. And if there was any confusion in his mind on this point, shortly after he shows clear alignment with his colleagues:
"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)"
So once again your selective sampling and out-of-context citations are easily unmasked. But let's answer Cong. Bingham. "Who does not know? DiogenesLamp!!!"
