Replies

Yes, about how ACTUAL WORDS OF THE JUDGES were not nearly as important as your ‘rationale’ of the case.

No, I gave you the ACTUAL WORDS OF THE JUDGES, who said that the EXACT SAME RULE had always applied. First, in England. Then, in the Colonies. Then, in the United States after the Revolution. Then, in the United States after the establishment of the Constitution:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"

Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:

The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:

"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN UNLESS THE CHILD OF AN AMBASSADOR OR OTHER DIPLOMATIC AGENT OF A FOREIGN STATE OR OF AN ALIEN ENEMY IN HOSTILE OCCUPATION OF THE PLACE WHERE THE CHILD WAS BORN."

That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.

First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."

Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."

And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.

All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.

Again, your 'rationale'. I showed exact quotes in context with sources and you reply is - "That isn't what they really meant"

No, you didn't provide the context. Nor did you even source the first quote to Senator Jacob Howard.I did that.

I also provided the context, which was that they were debating first the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and then the 14th Amendment.

I can even come up with more context if you like, because I have read up on these quotes as well.

It turns out that that quote was made by Senator Howard after the following exchange, which took place during a Senate session in which Howard was present:

Senator Fessenden: "Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country."

Senator Wade: "The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside 'near' the United States, in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington."

Senator Howard was there, but he made no objection to that definition.

And shortly AFTER Howard made his statement (which, again, does not include the word "AND" between the 2nd and 3rd clauses, indicating that is not a LIST of 3 separate things, but a RESTATEMENT of the same thing 3 times), Senator Conness of California had this to say:

"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

So Senator Conness says the law will declare that children born in the United States of Chinese, non-citizen parents will be citizens.

This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to your obvious misinterpretation of Howard's words. Not surprisingly, he makes no objection at all.

Why not? It's obvious. He wasn't saying what you claim he was saying.

Neither the grammar of his sentence, nor the exchange that came before his quote, nor the discussion that came after his quote, support your interpretation.

So once again, you're twisting quotes.

Yes, and they are citizens by birth BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS WERE CITIZENS!

No, that's not what Bingham says.

He says, "Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens."

The fact is, his earlier quote - the one you quoted, while falsely accusing me of "cherry picking," was said in the same context as that of Jacob's quote: And it is clear from reading the debates that the ONLY people they intended to exclude by that language were, 1) the historical exceptions, and 2) INDIANS born in Indian tribes, who were not considered to be members of the United States, but of their tribes.