YES, you're twisting his words, because you strip them of the CONTEXT in which he spoke those words.
The question is: What did they mean by those words, "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," and did those words include people simply because they were non-US-citizens of Norway, or France, or China.
On the surface, the words themselves certainly suggest that resident aliens, living here and participating in US society, would be excluded by the phrase "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty."
But that idea is NOT supported by anything else EVER said in the course of the entire debates.
EVER.
In fact, it is CONTRADICTED by clear statements in the Senate debates on the 14th Amendment, in which it was CLEARLY stated that the only people born on US soil who were not born United States citizens were "the children of ambassadors."
And Senator Jacob Howard was in the room when that statement was made. If he believed what you claim, then why did he make no objection to that statement whatsoever?
As far as the House goes, Representative James Falconer Wilson, after bringing up the Civil Rights Act bill on March 1, 1866, immediately points out what the rule of citizenship is in the United States:
Blackstone says:
"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the Crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens are such as are born out of it." -- Sharswood's Blackstone, vol. 1, p. 364.
The principle laid down here applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, "founded in reason and the nature of government."
The English law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects; nor does it do so in regard to naturalization. This law bound the colonies before the Revolution; and was not changed afterward.
The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone -- natural-born and naturalized citizens. It speaks of "natural-born" citizens, and also provides for the establishment of "a uniform rule of naturalization" by Congress.
So Wilson, introducing the bill in the HOUSE, AGREES WITH EVERYBODY ELSE THAT WE DERIVED OUR BASIC RULE ON NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP DIRECTLY FROM THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW.
So why don't you quote WILSON, making that statement?
I'll tell you why. Because YOU are the liar and fraud that you accuse accurate expositors of history and the Constitution of being. That's why.
Wilson is speaking here of whether black people can be citizens of the United States. That is the entire context of his speech, and it's the entire context of both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment. Ensuring that the rights of citizenship were not denied to BLACK AMERICANS was the entire PURPOSE of both.
The purpose never had anything whatsoever to do with changing the status, in any way, of children born in the United States to non-citizen parents.
Wilson then says something, IN THE CONTEXT OF DISCUSSING WHETHER BLACK PEOPLE CAN BE CITIZENS OR NOT, that I'm sure you'll love, because you can pretend it's a REQUIREMENT rather than a most-convincing-argument:
No one can doubt that an alien African could be naturalized under this part of the act of 1802, who was residing in the United States prior to the 29th day of January, 1795. Well, if Africans naturalized under this law should have had children born to them, will any person say that such children would be less citizens than their parents? The parents being citizens of the United States by naturalization, would it not follow that children born to them would be citizens by birth? I apprehend that it will not be claimed by anyone that the children of naturalized citizens of the United States do not partake of the citizenship of their parents.
This, of course, is exactly the kind of statement that birthers like you habitually have and will continue to pull out of the context of all other writings, in order to claim that two citizen parents are REQUIRED to make a natural born citizen.
You will cherry-pick one ambiguous statement that seems to imply what you want to "prove," while ignoring ten clear statements that absolutely refute it, and then claim the one ambiguous statement is "proof" of their position.
But -- just as in Minor v Happersett -- the speaker here MAKES NO SUCH CONDITION. In fact, the example is very similar to the statement in Minor v Happersett. He is making an example of the fact that it simply cannot be rationally disputed by ANYBODY that if two people were to come from Africa, be naturalized as US citizens, and then have children here, those children would obviously be citizens as well.
He is creating an absurdity: It would be absurd for the US-born children of US citizens not to be citizens themselves.
And we know that it's an absurdity he's creating by his statements that come both before and after this statement.
For example, he has just stated explicitly:
"All persons born within [the] jurisdiction are natural-born subjects... This law bound the colonies before the Revolution; and was not changed afterward."
He has also noted that the law divides "the people" into exactly TWO classes: "aliens and natural-born subjects."
Like Bingham, he also uses the phrases "citizens by birth" and "natural born citizens" in a way that is SYNONYMOUS.
He then makes the point that black people can certainly be citizens, even under the existing law.
He quotes Hugh Legare, Attorney General of the United States, in an 1843 opinion clarifying that a free black person born in the United States is born a citizen.
He quotes Chancellor Kent: "Citizens, under our Constitution and laws, mean free inhabitants, born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress."
He quotes Secretary of State Marcy:
On this question of citizenship, Mr. Marcy, while he was Secretary of State, in a note dated March 6, 1854, expressed himself as follows:
"Although in general it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expediency of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen of the United States, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien at the time of his birth."
Wilson then goes on to directly quote William Rawle's statement on citizenship:
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 on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for such a definition, and that must lead us to the 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:
"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, p. 80.
So James Falconer Wilson explicitly stated on the floor of the House of Representatives that the children born in the United States of alien parents were themselves natural born citizens, and "entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
And where was Representative John Bingham (who elsewhere EQUATES "born a citizen" with "natural born citizen") at that moment? HE WAS RIGHT THERE IN THE CHAMBER WHEN WILSON MADE THE STATEMENT. We know this because he spoke just before Representative Wilson did.
And did he object, in the slightest?
NO, HE DID NOT.
So clearly, when Bingham said "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," he wasn't talking about non-citizens here on US soil. If he had been, then surely, just like Jacob Howard failing to make any objection at all over in the Senate, he would have objected when others stated with absolute clarity that the children born here of alien parents were themselves natural born citizens.
You said:
You are the one that knowingly and intentionally cut out his quote just before he specifically said "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". It's not that you didn't see it, it's that you willfully, and with intent to deceive, removed it from his statement.
I gave no intent to deceive whatsoever. The other part of his statement had already been liberally promoted by you and other birthers. I was simply supplying the part that YOU, with apparent intent to deceive, HAD YOURSELF LEFT OUT.
Again, YOU are the intellectually dishonest liar that haunts this forum. Bingham, Howard, Trubull and Wilson explicitly stated that citizenship would not be given to aliens or temporary sojourners.
I assume you meant to say "THE CHILDREN OF aliens or temporary sojourners."
In which case, my reply is:
BULL****.
We've seen here you have have cherry-picked and twisted the words of Bingham, Howard, and Wilson. Wilson explicitly stated that the children born here of alien parents were themselves NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, so Wilson ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTS YOU AND REVEALS YOU AS A LIAR.
We've seen that both Bingham and Howard were present when others explicitly stated in Congress that the children born here of alien parents were natural born citizens (in the case of Bingham), and that the only exception was children born to foreign ambassadors (Howard). And neither made the slightest objection to that statement.
Elsewhere we've seen how you have similarly twisted the words of Senator Trumbull, just as you've cherry-picked and twisted every quote you could get your hands on in the desperate pursuit of propagandizing your bogus claim.
It doesn't matter how large you make the type in accusing others of being "liars." It is clear from the historical record and the dozens of fallacious arguments you've made here that the liar is you.
The question is: What did they mean by those words, "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," and did those words include people simply because they were non-US-citizens of Norway, or France, or China.
No, you lying F**k! Here you go with your attempts to LIE again. Here are his EXACT words. I'm not going to let YOU get away with twisting them.
John Bingham, 1866:
I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, [nc - prior to the 14th Amendment] that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.
And lest you think this was a loosely held belief on the part of John Bingham, here is his words from 1862 to disabuse you of that notion.
John Bingham, 1862:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, 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."
Notice that John Bingham twice said "PARENTS"? That it is the PARENTS who cannot have allegiance to a foreign Sovereign?
There is NO AMBIGUITY as to what John Bingham means and intends, (Even your semi-ally Nero Germanicus admits this.) and YOUR efforts to introduce ambiguity into his statements are just further attempts at LYING! It's not that you don't understand this, it's that you understand it perfectly AND CHOSE TO LIE ABOUT IT!
I am not going to address the rest of your message. I don't have to. Once you've been demonstrated to be intentionally lying, it serves no purpose to legitimize your further prevarication with a detailed response.