[Red Steel]

And what Cyropaedia told you about the intent and meaning of the words in the 14th Amendment:

-----------

"Sorry, but it says born within the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Here's what Sen. Trumball said to Sen Howard :

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Howard agreed. Trumball also said,

“It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…”

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means only those that fell completely within the jurisdiction of the United States. Not "owing allegiance to anyone else" applies to native Americans as well foreigners from other countries.

During the debate over the Naturalization Act of 1870, there were Representatives that argued that the 14th Amendment did provide foreigners a de-facto right to obtain citizenship. This contention was not disputed."

------------

You couple what was said by Senators Howard and Trumbull, along with what SCOTUS said in the Slaughterhouse cases that I showed you, not to leave out what Senator Bingham's said about it, you are clearly wrong.

[Michael Michael]

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

And what was the subject at that time? Indians. And why weren't Indians "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"? Because the Indians were sovereign nations. They were outside of our laws. We could not legislate against the Indians. We instead made treaties with them, just as we do with every other sovereign nation.

Here, here is more of what Trumbull said regarding Indians and why they were not subject to our jurisdiction, including what he said just prior to the other Trumbull quote you vomit up out of context:

Can you sue a Navajoe in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense? Is it not understood that if we want to make arrangements with the Indians to whom he refers that we do it by means of a treaty?

Does the government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

Again, Trumbull was speaking specifically of Indians. And can immigrants in the US be considered anything akin to the Indians in any of the respects that Trumbull mentions here?

No.

Can you sue an immigrant in the US in court? Yes.

Do we make treaties with immigrants in the US? No.

Do we have jurisdiction over murders and robberies committed by a US immigrant upon another? Yes.

Are immigrants in the US subject to our complete jurisdiction? Yes.

Again, you take Trumbull's words completely out of context and attempt to apply them to a group of people who bear no relation whatsoever to those he actually is talking about.

The question was specifically raised in the debates whether or not the children born to non-citizen immigrants were to be considered citizens. And it was specifically stated that they were. The issue was never spoken of again.

All you're doing is just throwing words up as a smokescreen, trying to convince those who don't know any better.

...not to leave out what Senator Bingham's said about it...

Bingham wasn't a Senator. He was a Representative. Nor did he say anything about the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. You are utterly clueless on the matter.