That's a good read, and an interesting theory. But I'm not convinced that it ends the argument. If the framers of the 14th meant it to mean "absent an allegiance to any foreign power," they could have written that. They didn't. And the comments of two sponsors of the bill do not necessarily reflect the views ofhte other members of Congress who voted for it, let alone the state legislatures that ratified it.
Further, as the comments and debates cited in that article make clear, in the mid-19th century, a whole lot of concepts about citizenship were vague. People were objecting to the notion that American Indians, or the babies of Chinese and others who were admitted to the US legally, could become citizens.
In those days, the Chinese were kept to Chinatown, eyed with suspicion, and the target of harsh restrictions and lurid racial slurs in the popular press. Blacks weren't full citizens in many places, not really, until the 1950s and '60s.
The notion of citizenship has changed radically since 1868. The most wrenching change is the notion that everyone is a citizen of somewhere; in the 19th century, a lot of places (aw, hell, at least a couple of continents) weren't considered countries, and the folks who lived there weren't citizens of anything. There was no government in existence that was required or empowered to protect their rights. There was no system of international law to mediate the question.
Another important change is that the development of a consensus that "second-class citizen" is an anti-American notion, antithetical to our principles. You are a citizen or you are not. And even if not a citizen, you are still a person. Basic rights are an inherent condition of humanity, and governments exist to secure these rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
As a question of law and logic, the debates about the minutiae of the 14th aren't very compelling. If you're worried about "anchor babies," amend the amendment.
That's impossible so I'll take a judge ruling 180 degrees opposite of your interpretation. All we need are the right judges and a good Supreme Court
All I care about is the bottom line- That birthright citizenship gets killed dead. I'm tired of illegal aliens having the upper hand. So far we are educating their anchor babies and their illegal alien children. Now the Democrats are pushing nationalized health care for children, this will have me paying for the health care of the offspring of illegals
“And even if not a citizen, you are still a person.”
Yes, I do not disagree.
Also, a big problem with addressing documents that were written in the far past is that the meanings of certain words my COMPLETELY change even within as short a time as fifty years — let alone one hundred or two hundred years.
This is why the context of the time they were written is so important.
Thank you for your post.
Would you agree that some sort of clarification or “revisiting” of the fourteenth amendment is in order?
Well, they certainly THOUGHT they had written that. But they couldn't foresee that a century later folks like ReignofError would come along and retroactively reinterpret their use of language.
This is the problem with the concept of a "living Constitution".
Moreover, there has NEVER been a controloing case where the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on children of individuals who are citizens of a foreign power and who have no legal basis for their presence in the United States.
Should such a case be brought, I would expect that such children would be denied citizenship.