Here is the statement of someone who knows better than anyone posting to this thread.
"constitutional lawyer James C. Ho, a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, said amendment authors "clearly meant" to include the children of foreigners. In fact, he said, opponents at the time warned it would do just that. Lawmakers "debated the wisdom of guaranteeing birthright citizenship," said Ho, "but no one disputed" its meaning.
Assuming Fred is trying to get votes, it was a bad tactical decision to bring this issue up in Florida, of all places.
"constitutional lawyer James C. Ho, a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, said amendment authors "clearly meant" to include the children of foreigners. In fact, he said, opponents at the time warned it would do just that. Lawmakers "debated the wisdom of guaranteeing birthright citizenship," said Ho, "but no one disputed" its meaning.
Ho is absolutely correct.
Reading these Birthright Citizenship threads is almost as much fun as reading the Wal-Mart threads.
Heck, if people want a long shot, I'll give them one. Consider whom the amendment excludes. Among those excluded are the children of occupying armies.
Have the President by executive order, if he has the authority, or Congress by legislation, declare the presence of illegal immigrants a hostile, foreign occupation resulting from a sureptitious invasion. If you can declare someone who is not in this country to be an enemy combatant, surely you can do the same thing for someone who is inside the country.
At least, the idea is a little bit fresher than the usual back and forth . . . :-)
Ho is wrong, and so are you.
The primary drafter of this amendment, and frankly I don’t have the time to go back and dig out all my old posts on this subject (going back years) to provide you with all the details of the debates, in Congress and in the State Legislatures, demonstating conclusively that they intended the key phrase to exclude the children of anyone owing allegience to a foreign power.
It is true that during debates, some challenged the language, saying that it could open the door to automatic citizenship to every child born on US soil.
But the primary drafter prevailed with his explanation that such an interpretation was a nonsense that could not be seriously entertained, because if the Amendment were to be construed thus, the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would be robbed of all significance. This is contrary to all rules for the interpretation of legal language, which require an interpretation that gives meaning to all the parts of the text.
Bottom line: everyone on US soil is subject to our laws to one degree or another, even diplomats. What was intended by the inclusion of this phrase, and this intent has been subverted entirely over the years, is that the children of those owing allegience to a foreign nation as a subject or citizen, are not US citzens, even though born in the US.
I beleive that there is no provision in our Constitution that has been more thoroughly misunderstood and misconstrued than the 14th amendment.
And your post stands as evidence of that.