I’ve been reading about the debates in Congress on the 14th Amendment. Interesting ‘stuff when we consider what was discussed and meant in the 1860’s vs. what is now meant. I had read about the discussion on Gypsies in the debates before but only superficially. Took the time to read it more deeply.
The issue of immigration as known at the time was discussed. Senator Edgar Cowan specifically brought up Gypsies. Cowan discussed domicile, allegiance, entering the country, etc.
For example, via the Amicus Curiae brief of Gerald Magliocca (at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/395294/20260203111938269_260104a%20AC%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf), he makes an interesting point about Gypsies being discussed as not meeting the requirements for domicile and allegiance, yet children born of Gypsies in the US being US citizens.
During the debates, Cowan stated that Pennsylvania should be able to expel Gypsies because “... they invade her borders; who owe to her no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own—an imperium in imperio; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen.” - see Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (1866) (statement of Sen. Cowan)
Magliocca makes the case that “the Thirty-Ninth Congress affirmed that native-born Gypsy children were birthright citizens even though their parents lacked allegiance or a domicile.”
Congress rejected Cowan’s concerns outright. Cowan voted against the 14th Amendment.
For whatever reason, Congress during the debates on the 14th Amendment made a conscious choice to use wording in the 14th Amendment to allow children - including Gypsy children - born in the US to become citizens, even though regarding Gypsy children:
a) their parents may not have been (and probably were not) US citizens;
c) their parents had no domicile in the US as understood at the time;
d) their parents had no allegiance to the US as understood at the time
That is the assertion that is under debate, that is, that the "conscious choice" was what you just said - to allow children born in the USA, with no other qualification, to become citizens.
That is what Wong supposedly said "no" to. Born here is not enough, subject to the jurisdiction thereof is not enough either. One must be born or naturalized here, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is an allegience question as defined in the naturalization process and assumed in the natural born case.
But 14A did not intend for people to attain citizenship via means that are less rigorous than naturalization, otherwise naturalization becomes superfluous.
Why go through the rigors of the naturalization process when one could simply pop out citizens without it?
-PJ