Posted on 05/15/2025 2:37:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
This is the key case to all others. If so-called birthright citizenship continues to be an avenue to citizenship for the baby and family, our culture and nation will not survive. None of the Bill of Rights will remain.
The commas make it clear it’s a list.
Ambassadors are naturally foreigners so it would be redundant to state that if it was limited to them.
The listing comma is used as a kind of substitute for the word and, or sometimes for or. It occurs in two slightly different circumstances. First, it is used in a list when three or more words, phrases or even complete sentences are joined by the word and or or; we might call this construction an X, Y and Z list:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners OR aliens OR 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.
Commas save lives:
Let’s eat Grandma!
Let’s eat, Grandma!
Do you have a link where that quote comes from, and the greater context of it? I wonder if there was a transcription error that left out the word “or”. Was this originally spoken, or written?
Just for reference, here is the quote again:
“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.”
Lists separated by commas can mean different things, and usually the word “and” or “or” before the concluding item in the list tells you what the relationship of the list items are to each other. Usually if there’s not “or” or “and” in the list, the list itself all describes one thing.
But maybe that’s just if it’s adjectives being used. For instance, “This list does not include people who are fat, lazy, ugly children of ambassadors.” In that list all the descriptors describe one person. With a list of nouns it seems different. For instance, “This list does not include people who are pacifists, liberals, who are children of ambassadors.”
The other thing that is throwing me is the inconsistency in the use of the word “who”. It is used for “who are foreigners” and “who belong to the families of ambassadors” but not to the word “aliens”, which allows the possibility that the word “aliens” could be a descriptor for the word “foreigners” - as if the commas could be replaced by hyphens: “persons born in the United States who are foreigners - aliens - who belong to the families of ambassadors.”
I don’t know. I think the Founders meant something by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and this statement about the spirit of the law speaks of “persons born in the United States who are foreigners” - which says straight out that you can be born here but still be a foreigner. Unless there is a transcription error, though, I think this passage could be interpreted either way. It could be interpreted to mean that the word “or” is implied between all the listed items, or it could be interpreted to mean that the word “and” is implied. The absence of the connector makes the quote very muddy to interpret. If the absence of the word “who” as described above means that “aliens” further clarifies the word “foreigners”, then this isn’t a list at all but simply persons who are aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors.
I think it would take more context to clarify how this should be interpreted.
For most of human history, time and parental intent were the deciding factors. Was it simply during a visit, and they'll be home soon to get the paperwork for home citizenship for the baby? Or do the parents intend to follow the long and laborious process of legally becoming citizens in the new nation, and thus the child should be as well?
However... With illegals, they very clearly are AVOIDING doing the proper legal work required to become citizens, and therefore their children should be excluded from the automatic stamp of approval. Attempting to break the laws of a nation to gain benefits for your children can put those children in a very difficult bind on their citizenship status... but that bind is not the responsibility of the US to resolve for them. That bind should help serve as a significant deterrent to parents eager to break the laws of any other nation.
My mind is fuzzy right now, but somehow the distinction between natural-born citizens and non-natural-born citizens comes into play too. If simply being born here makes you a natural-born citizen, as seems to be the current interpretation - then why not just say “citizen”?
Also, the 14th Amendment was passed in response to the Dred Scott decision which stated that because of the 3/5ths Compromise Negroes are not recognized in the US Constitution as legal “persons” with standing to file for legal action, and are thus classified as human livestock. The clear intent was to say that if you are a biological person who was born here you are a citizen even if you are Negro.
Also, thinking about what “jurisdiction” means, are children born on Native American reservations US citizens? The US doesn’t have jurisdiction on reservations, right? But if someone who lives on a reservation commits a crime outside of the reservation, does the US have jurisdiction to prosecute them?
And maybe somebody can clarify. If I gave birth in France, would my child be a citizen of France as well as a citizen of the US as conferred by my own US citizenship? Is the US the only place that (for now at least) automatically confers dual citizenship on anybody born here - the citizenship of the parent AND the citizenship of the US?
Where in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to decide that US citizenship can be conferred to a child through the citizenship of the parent(s) if the child is born outside of US soil? Or was that the understanding that all the civilized world basically had - that if you are a citizen visiting another country you and any children born to you are considered visitors there unless and until you naturalize?
I think the case of the parents who chose to take their children with them when they were deported is important for people to understand legally. The US did not deport the child. The parents put themselves in the position where the child can either be with the parent, or be in the US, but not both.
If prospective illegal immigrants realize that is the choice they will face, maybe they will choose not to put themselves in that position.
are you including roberts in you count?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.