[CA Conservative]

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

I am not sure that this quote supports the idea that the children of illegals that are born here are not citizens. Back when I went to school in the 60's and 70's, they taught us how to diagram a sentence. This sentence appears to limit the restriction against birthright citizenship to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. The sentence construction makes it appear that the word "aliens" is a clarification of the preceding term "foreigners", not a separate category. As such, the term could be deleted without changing the meaning of the sentence.

So the best reading of that sentence would be, "“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” So it appears that the ONLY foreigners being excluded from birthright citizenship by this statement were the families of diplomats.

Note that I am not in favor of birthright citizenship - just pointing out that this quote does not support the argument against it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I am not sure that this quote supports the idea that the children of illegals that are born here are not citizens. Back when I went to school in the 60's and 70's, they taught us how to diagram a sentence. This sentence appears to limit the restriction against birthright citizenship to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. The sentence construction makes it appear that the word "aliens" is a clarification of the preceding term "foreigners", not a separate category. As such, the term could be deleted without changing the meaning of the sentence.

This is a reasonable conjecture. I think I have seen clarifications from Senator Howard that indicated he didn't care if they were naturalized or not, which clarifies this against the meaning offered.

However, Chief author of the 14th amendment Representative John Bingham makes it very clear that he has no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreign nationals.

Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens. There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.

And here is another quote from John Bingham:

..“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”

It is reasonable to believe that this is the opinion he shared with the other members of congress when the Amendment was being drafted and debated.

[frog in a pot]

Note that I am not in favor of birthright citizenship...
Fair enough.

...just pointing out that this quote does not support the argument against it.

I will disagree. Such a "best reading" produces superfluous, unnecessary language. IMO, it is clear from a fair reading that the language following "who are" refers to three separate and distinct classes of non-citizens.

But otherwise, I have enjoyed reading your various posts! Have a nice weekend (may I recommend the waters off of Santa Barbara?)

[betty boop]

Thomas Jefferson defined "aliens" very clearly and succinctly: “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

So they are not simply "foreigners."

[itsahoot]

Note that I am not in favor of birthright citizenship

How would your post read any different if you were in favor of it?