“The organic law says that no person but a natural-born citizen, or a citizen when it was made, shall be eligible to the office of President. This amendment would make all citizens eligible, Negroes as well as whites. For if Negroes are citizens they are natural born, because they are the descendants of ancestors for several generations back, who were born here as well themselves.”
The debate went on for several months...then
On May 30th, Sen. Trumbell(framer of the 14th) said that if you are born to parents owing allegiance to a nation in which the United States makes treaties with, you are NOT a citizen of the United States. You are an alien because you are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the US because at birth you are subject to the foreign nation in which the treaty is made.
Rogers was a bigot, a racist and a staunch supporter of slavery. What you neglect to address it the real reason for the 14th, the equal treatment for Negroes that was embedded in the Declaration & the Constitution. In the north, Negroes were elected to local & state offices. Many held prominent positions as full fledged citizens. Facts that the progressive, socialist, Marxist left have been trying eliminate form our history for decades. It has always been the lib democrats who voted against the freeing of the slaves and who were the racists. It was a lib Democrat citing that natural born meant being born to US citizens, as the declaration & constitution never declared race to be a hindrance and as we know, it was only the states of the south that withheld that right of the blacks. The 14th was about recognizing the rights of citizenship to the blacks, NOT about expanding US citizenship laws.
Lots of things get said in debates...heck, Guam may be about to capsize if you believe Congressional discussions.
However, what gets put into the LAW is what matters. They COULD have written “those born of citizen parents’ or ‘those born of citizens or long-term residents’, but they didn’t. The phase they used INCLUDES those born of folks temporarily but legally present. If they used the wrong terms...too bad. It is what was passed and ratified. ‘Under the jurisdiction’ has never meant ‘citizens’.
“You continually make statements such as the above yet you do not back it up with historical proof.”
Yes I have. Multiple times. You ignore anything you don’t want to believe.
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 1826
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
Etc.