Posted on 01/24/2024 11:00:59 AM PST by CDR Kerchner
If not an actual Bill, then at least a resolution as to the “sense of the House” as to the original intent and meaning on terms and sentences for the issues of “natural born Citizen” and “14th Amendment Section 1” (and the modern day birthright citizenship issue deriving from misinterpetation of the 14th Amendment Section 1) in our U.S. Constitution. And using the precedence setting words of a former distinguished member, John Bingham, should give them a solid foundation to propose at least a resolution. It would make great and useful discussions in Congress, whatever the outcome.
So you idea is a very good one. I think you should work on it.
It could be Roberts ride on the Epstein Express helps him forget the Constitution and other meaningful docs when he has to make the really tough USA-American calls when opposed by commies and socialists!
R U a citizen - oh well doesn’t matter - why don’t you care? Must not have long to live - as this country quickly headed for the sh*t can anyway with the open borders - I get it now - so why should it have any rules about anything except let the few work their whole lives, payout the a** for everyone else not working anymore, and living for free.
Okay then. Show us the case that got appealed to the Supreme Court.
I was especially impressed by his pointing out the neologism of introducing the notion of "natural born citizenship" pointing out that opponents created a strawman argument that there is a premium class of citizens that has an extra status and privilege in the country that was not true.
The left are masters at twisting language to make words mean the opposite of what they really mean and then sneak them into legislation or media stories. I don't mean to imply that they're smarter than the rest of us, just that the rest of us wouldn't dare to do something like that. But we're smart enough to recognize it when we see it. We just have an innate sense of responsibility that prevents us from foisting that kind of nonsense on the rest of society.
I've always argued that the "natural born citizen" clause was an additional requirement to be President, not a class of citizen that doesn't exist. However, that's what the opponents are trying to persuade: that we have only "citizen" and "naturalized citizen" and that "natural born citizen" is equal to "citizen" because we only have two classes of citizenship.
The Framers' intention for "natural born citizen" is demonstrated by how they debated and wrote the Naturalization Act of 1790, recognized their mistake in interpreting the natural born citizen requirement in Article II Section 1, and then correcting it in the repeal of Naturalization Act of 1790 and the passing of the Naturalization Act of 1795.
I've also argued that the Preamble of the Constitution lays out that We the People and our Posterity are to be secured by the Constitution. This also makes clear that the Framers meant the Constitution to protect the citizens and their citizen children. Detractors argue that the Preamble has no force of law, and also that the Federalist essays are just dead white men's writings.
And finally, even contemporaries like Thomas Paine wrote in The Rights of Man (1791) how the Constitution prevented foreigners and "half a foreigner" to become President, so it was another example of how "natural born citizen" was a requirement to be President and not a phantom class of citizenship.
-PJ
There were quite a few court filings appealing for Certiorari with SCOTUS but the Roberts court “evaded” them all per Justice Thomas’s testimony before a sub-committee in Congress. The federal courts used every legal technicality in their tool bag to not take and try a case on the merits. And SCOTUS treated all the appeals to it for Certiorari with stone silence and just not taking any of them. They totally evaded their oaths to support and defend the Constitution and ignored the words of Chief Justice John Marshall it not taking a first impressions case on the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” as directly applied to presidential eligibility. As I said, why? Because they knew the answer. Obama was not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and they knew it and feared the charge of racism, or told by the three letter agencies that 100s of cities would burn if Obama was ruled ineligible, or Roberts and maybe one or two more were threatened in one way or another to keep them from doing their constitutional duty. And once Obama got away with it, along comes Harris and Haley and of course Cruz who want to do or did in the case of Harris, the same unconstitutional tactic and language manipulation with the help of both major political parties and their enabling media and silent courts to ignore the true original intent, meaning, and purpose of the nbC term. Do a search for presidential eligibility lawsuits. Cases were brought against McCain and Obama in 2008 and some of them were taken all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court only to be turned away. And many others since. Just do some research yourself and you will find the answers you seek.
When was this?
They totally evaded their oaths to support and defend the Constitution and ignored the words of Chief Justice John Marshall it not taking a first impressions case on the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” as directly applied to presidential eligibility.
Alternatively: if a case is deemed frivolous without merit on the outset, why waste time taking it? (Notwithstanding that the Supreme Court is not obligated to take on every appeal which is made to them.)
Do a search for presidential eligibility lawsuits. Cases were brought against McCain and Obama in 2008 and some of them were taken all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court only to be turned away. And many others since. Just do some research yourself and you will find the answers you seek.
I think the record on the various eligibility lawsuits is pretty open and shut.
Thus you prove the point that the federal court system all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court has been “evading” the first impression issue of who is a constitutional “natural born Citizen” per the presidential eligibility clause in the U.S. Constitution. Instead of taking the constitutional question on and hearing arguments on the term at the highest court eventually, they all “evaded” the issue because of fear of the race card that Obama and mass, mainstream media was playing so well. And some here are still labeling any presidential eligibility discussion as racism ignoring that John McCain’s nbc status was challenged in early 2008 by Hillary Clinton’s campaigns operatives and surrogates. Hillary Clinton and her campaign operatives were the first “Birthers”. Just look up the PUMA organization: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/jun/07/hillaryclinton.barackobama
It is not about race, it is about deciding at the U.S. Supreme Court level who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States for presidential eligibility purposes. Remember John McCain had to prove his eligibility before the Judiciary Committee in the U.S. Senate with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama among the deciders on that committee. The nbC issue as it applies directly to who is one and who is not for presidential eligibility, is instead a first impression decision that needed to be taken on by SCOTUS and decided, instead of ducking and “evading” the issue. But unfortunately for the USA, I fear, our court system in now politically compromised by party loyalty over loyalty to the Constitution on the nbC issue as both major political parties want to run “politically attractive” first this or that constitutionally ineligible persons for Pres and CinC and/or VP. Either that or Chief Justice Roberts is ethically compromised by threats made to him about some dirt that someone has on him. He’s waffled on his constitutional responsibilities to support and protect the Constitution and our sovereign nation more than once as all who have watched his side of key rulings, when he cannot “evade” taking up an issue.
Charles Payne hits a home run with this today: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/watch-fox-news-host-charles-payne-turns-tables/
You think wrongly.
Not to be confrontational.
But you are in error.
It really isn’t going to matter in the scheme of things. She has no chance of getting the nomination. Kicking a dead horse.
Bingham did not write the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. It was written by Senator Jacob Howard and introduced on May 30th, 1866.
Bingham’s statement “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution …” is about Senate Bill 61 which became the Civil Rights Act of 1866. He said this in March 1866 before the citizenship clause had been added to the 14th.
In 1868 after the 14th Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification, Bingham said “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.”
Justice Thomas didn’t say they were evading the issue of natural born citizen in general. Instead he joked with Congressman Serrano (who was born in Puerto Rico) that the Court was evading the question of whether or not Serrano could be president because of his birth in a territory not a state.
It was a running joke that went on between them for years.
March 15, 2000 House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing;
Rep. Serrano: “I also have to be especially nice to them since I know someday they made decide whether my Puerto Rican/American citizenship is statutory or constitutional. And I’m still trying to find out from them if a guy born in Puerto Rico can run for President. But feel no pressure on any of the … feel no pressure on any of the questions I will ask you today.”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?156031-1/us-supreme-court-2001-budget
March 7, 2007 House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing;
Rep. Serrano: “I really appreciate the fact that you’re here before us. I also appreciate the fact that off the record, there, you told me I probably am not eligible to run for President but that is an ongoing thing with me. Someday I may bring it before you whether or not somebody born in Puerto Rico can run for President , but we really welcome you today …”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?197007-1/fiscal-year-2008-supreme-court-budget
March 13th, 2008, House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing;
Rep. Serrano: “…although I must say on a personal level that for about ten years I’ve been trying to get out of you an unofficial comment on whether or not someone born in Puerto Rico can serve as President and from what I understand from a different California case you may have to decide on Mr. McCain, so if you do I’ll try to get myself included in the same package. …”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?204419-1/fiscal-year-2009-supreme-court-budget
April 23rd, 2009, House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing;
Rep. Serrano: “Although I always have some personal concern about asking the third branch to come and testify before us about buildings, staffing levels, and computers, rather than whether I can run for President or not, these hearings provide …”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?285453-1/fiscal-year-2010-supreme-court-budget
April 15th, 2010 House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing;
Rep. Serrano: “We always thank you for your service and tell the other seven we do the same thing.”
Justice Thomas: “Thank you Mr. Chairman and it is always an honor to be here. You and I have been at this together for a decade and a half. And ummm…”
Rep. Serrano: I glad to hear you don’t think there has to be a judge on the Court because I’m not a judge. I haven’t been a judge.”
Justice Thomas: “And you don’t have to be born in the United States so you never have to answer that question.”
Rep. Serrano: “oh really.”
Justice Thomas: “yeah.”
Rep. Serrano: “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as President but you answer this one.”
Justice Thomas: “We’re evading that one. We’re giving you another option.”
Rep. Serrano: “Thanks a lot.”
Justice Thomas: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman
https://www.c-span.org/video/?293017-1/fiscal-year-2011-supreme-court-budget
Thanks for the context, 4Zoltan.
CDR Kerchner, was this the “evading” comment by Justice Thomas you previously referred to? If not, what were you citing?
Watch Justice Thomas say what he said in this video clip on YouTube. Each of you with your own eyes and ears be the judge of what he meant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu6OiTiua08
Rep. John Bingham (author of the 14th Amendment) describing his understanding of the language of the Constitution as of 1866:"[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], 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"The guy who authored the 14th Amendment had a pretty solid historic understanding of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. But public school education has largely failed us all and we forget.
This misrepresentation of John Bingham is egregious and has been repeated ad nauseam by birthers since 2008.
John Bingham had nothing whatever to do with the first section of the 14th Amendment; the Citizenship Clause. Bingham's statement of March 9, 1866 about the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (S. Bill 61) occurred well before the first introduction of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment on May 23, 1866 by Senator Jacob Howard. The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was introduced in the Senate, not the House. When it got to the House, John Bingham did not say a mumbling word about it.
Regarding the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, Bingham rose to attack it as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. While Bingham professed he "did not find fault with the introductory clause" of the Civil Rights Bill, the Civil Rights Bill did not contain the words that were later proposed and ratified as the 14th Amendment.
The quote from Rep. Bingham comes from debate on the House floor of March 9, 1866. See Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1291. Therein, Rep. Bingham expressed his opposition to the Civil Rights bill as unconstitutionally beyond the powers of the Congress.
Neither Rep. Bingham, nor his March, 9, 1866 quote had anything to do with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. Rep. Bingham's remarks were in reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause which had yet to be introduced.
When the Citizenship Clause was introduced, it was in the Senate as an amendment to the House text of the then-proposed 14th Amendment which contained no Citizenship Clause as sent to the Senate. The Senate amendment adding a Citizenship Clause to the House-proposed text was offered by its author, Sen. Jacob Howard, on May 30, 1866.
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, March 9, 1866, pp. 1290-1291:
Page 1290RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
The House, agreeably to order, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. No. 61) entitled "An act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindication;" on which Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, was entitled to the floor.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I yield thirty minutes of my time to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Bingham.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it may be said that the objections which I deem it to be my duty to urge against the passage of the bill pending before the House apply to the instructions I have introduced by way of amendment to the pending motion to recommit; but I have this to say to gentlemen on that subject. Admitting that the objections do apply to the nstructions which I have had the honor to submit by way of amendment to the pending motion, if the gentleman who reports the bill urges these objections against the instructions for its amendment, it is a confession, sir, on his own part that this bill ought not to pass with or without amendment. The House by recommitting with the instructions proposed will not be concluded but may finally reject the bill as amended or reject the amendments proposed and substitute others which may be less objectionable.
Mr. Speaker, on that subject I beg leave further to say, that although the objections which I urge against the bill must, in the very nature of the case, apply to the proposed in-
- - - - - - - - -
structions, I venture to say no candid man, no right-minded man, will deny that by amending as proposed the bill will be less oppressive, and therefore less objectionable. Doubting, as I do, the power of Congress to pass the bill, I urge the instructions with a view to take from the bill what seems to me its oppressive.and I might say its unjust provisions;
Mr. Speaker, the instructions moved by me are these:
[...]
Having said this much, Mr. Speaker, I proceed to present to the consideration of the House my objections to the bill. And, first, I beg gentlemen to consider that I do not oppose any legislation which is authorized by the Constitution of my country to enforce in its letter and its spirit the bill of rights as embodied in that Constitution. I know that the enforcement of the bill of rights is the want of the Republic. I know if it had been enforced in good faith in every State of the Union the calamities and conflicts and crimes and sacrifices of the past five years would have been impossible.
But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it, the enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty and property of every citizen of the Republic within every organized State of the Union, is of the reserved powers of the States, to be enforced by State tribunals and by State officials acting under the solemn obligations of an oath imposed upon them by the Constitution of the United States. Who can doubt this conclusion who considers the words of the Constitution: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?" The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to punish offenses against the life, liberty, or property of the citizen in the States, nor does it prohibit that power to the States, but leaves it as the reserved power of the States, to be by them exercised.
Mr. Speaker, I would further remark in this connection, I honor the mover of this bill for the purpose he seeks to attain, which is to compel the exercise in good faith by the States of this reserved power. I cast no reflection upon the honorable committee of this House, in seeking to remedy, if possible, the great wrongs that have hitherto been inflicted upon citizens of the United States, I may say in almost every State of the Union, by State authority, and inflicted, too, in the past, without redress. I am with him in an earnest desire to have the bill of rights in your Constitution enforced everywhere. But I ask that it be enforced in accordance with the Constitution of my country.
Has the Congress of the United States the power to pass and enforce the bill as it comes to us from the committee? Has the Congress of the United States the power to declare, as this bill does declare, in the words which I propose to strike out, that there shall be no discrimination of civil rights among citizens of the United States in any State of the United States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery.
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; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him. But while this is admitted, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the United States within the States that there shall be no discrimination among them of civil rights?
[...]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Senator Jacob Howard, U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866
39th Congress, First Session
Congressional Globe, at page 2765, second column
Debate spans pages 2764-2771
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which was read as follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Americain Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring.) That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, namely:Article —.
Sec. 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without duo process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within the Union, according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But whenever, in any State, the elective franchise shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation in such State shall be reduced in the proportion whioh the number of suoh male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens not less than twenty-one years of age.
Sec. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vico President of the United States.
Sec. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall assumo or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection or of war against the United States, or any claim for compensation for loss of in vol untary service or labor.
Sec. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.
Absent was the Citizenship Clause in the House version of the proposed text of 14th Amendment.
Here is Sen. Jacob Howard on May 23, 1866, addressing the first section of that House text.
It is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the expression, "citizen of the United States," although that expression occurs twice in the Constitution, once in reference to the President of the United States, in which instance it is declared that none but a citizen of the United States shall be President, and again in reference to Senators, who are likewise to be citizens of the United States. Undoubtedly the expression is used in both those instances in the same sense in which it is employed in the amendment now before us. A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws. Before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, the citizens of each State were, in a qualified sense at least, aliens to one another, for the reason that the several States before that event were regarded by each other as independent Governments, each one possessing a sufficiency of sovereign power to enable it to claim the right of naturalization; and, undoubtedly, each one of them possessed for itself the right of naturalizing foreigners, and each one, also, if it had seen fit so to exercise its sovereign power, might have declared the citizens of every other State to be aliens in reference to itself. With a view to prevent such confusion and disorder, and to put the citizens of the several States on an equality with each other as to all fundamental rights, a clause was introduced in the Constitution declaring that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."The effect of this clause was to constitute ipso facto the citizens of each one of the original States citizens of the United States. And how did they antecedently become citizens of the several States? By birth or by naturalization. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; and the Constitution declares that they are entitled, as citizens, to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. They are, by constitutional right, entitled to these privileges and immunities, and may assert this right and these privileges and immunities, and ask for their enforcement whenever they go within the limits of the several States of the Union.
And here is Senator Jacob Howard introducing the Citizenship Clause in the Senate:
Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866
Mr. HOWARD. I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. R. No. 127) proposing.an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard.]
Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan will be read.
The Secretary read the amendment, which was in line nine, after the words "section one," to insert:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.So that the section will read :
Sec. 1. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they resideNo State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge tho privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person oflifc, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction tho equal protection of the laws.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment — I presume he will have no objection to it — by inserting after the word "thereof" the words "excluding Indians not taxed." The amendment would then read:
All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, excluding Indians not taxed, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.Mr. HOWARD. I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.
Mr. COWAN. The honorable Senator from Michigan has given this subject, I have no doubt, a good deal of his attention, and I am really desirous to have a legal definition of "citizenship of the United States." What does it mean? What is its length and breadth? I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? Have they any more rights than a sojourner in the United States? If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, he is entitled, to a certain extent, to the protection of the laws. You cannot murder him with impunity. It is murder to kill him, the same as it is to kill another man. You cannot commit an assault and battery on him, I apprehend. He has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.
It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power. He is not entitled, by virtue of that, to be an elector. An elector is one who is chosen by the people to perform that function, just the same as an officer is one chosen by the people to exercise the franchises of an office. Now, I should like to know, because really I have been puzzled for a long while and have been unable to determine exactly, either from conversation with those who ought to know, who have given this subject their attention, or from the decisions of the Supreme Court, the lines and boundaries which circumscribe that phrase, "citizen of the United States." What is it?
So far as the courts and the administration of the laws are concerned, I have supposed that every human being within their jurisdiction was in one sense of the word a citizen, that is, a person entitled to protection; but in so far as the right to hold property, particularly the right to acquire title to real estate, was concerned, that was a subject entirely within the control of the States. It has been so considered in the State of Pennsylvania; and aliens and others who acknowledge no allegiance, either to the State or to the General Government, may be limited and circumscribed in that particular. I have supposed, further, that it was essential to the existence of society itself, and particularly essential to the existence of a free State, that it should have the power, not only of declaring who should exercise political power within its boundaries, but that if it wore overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them. I do not know that there is any danger to many of the States in this Union; but is it proposed that the people of Cal-
- - - - -
ifornia are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not. It is not supposed that the people of California, in a broad and general sense, have any higher rights than the people of China; but they are in possession of the country of California, and if another people of a different race, of different religion, of different manners, of different traditions, different tastes and sympathies are to come there and have the free right to locate there and settle among them, and if they have an opportunity of pouring in such an immigration as in a short time will double or treble the population of California, I ask, are the people of California powerless to protect themselves? I do not know that the contingency will ever happen, but it may be well to consider it while we are on this point.
As I understand the rights of the States under the Constitution at present, California has the right, if she deems it proper, to forbid the entrance into her territory of any person she chooses who is not a citizen of some one of the United States. She cannot forbid his entrance; but unquestionably, if she was likely to be invaded by a flood of Australians or people from Borneo, man-eaters or cannibals if you please, she would have the right to say that those people should not come there. It depends upon the inherent character of the men. Why, sir, there are nations of people with whom theft is a virtue and falsehood a merit. There are people to whom polygamy is as natural as monogamy is with us. It is utterly impossible that these people can meet together and enjoy their several rights and privileges which they suppose to be natural in the same society; and it is necessary, a part of the nature of things, that society shall be more or less exclusive. It is utterly and totally impossible to mingle all the various families of men, from the lowest form of the Hottentot up to the highest Caucasian, in the same society.
It must be evident to every man intrusted with the power and duty of legislation, and qualified to exercise it in a wise and temperate mannor, that these things cannot be; and in my judgment there should be some limitation, some definition to this term "citizen of the United States." What is it? Is it simply to put a man in a condition that he may be an elector in one of the States? Is it to put him in a condition to have the right to enter the United States courts and sue? Or is it only that he is entitled as a sojourner to the protection of the laws while he is within and under the jurisdiction of the courts? Or is it to set him upon some pedestal, some position, to put him out of the reach of State legislation and State power?
Sir, I trust I am as liberal as anybody toward the rights of all people, but I am unwilling, on the part of my State, to give up the right that she claims, and that she may exercise, and exercise before very long, of expelling a certain number of people who invade her borders; who owe to her no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own — an imperium in imperio; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him, but, on the other hand, have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go, and whose sole merit is a universal swindle; who delight in it, who boast of it, and whose adroitness and cunning is of such a transcendent character that no skill can serve to correct it or punish it; I mean the Gypsies. They wander in gangs in my State. They follow no ostensible pursuit for a livelihood. They trade horses, tell fortunes, and things disappear mysteriously. Where they came from nobody knows. Their very origin is lost in mystery. No man today can tell from whence the Zingara come or whither they go, but it is understood that they are a distinct people. They never intermingle with any other. They never intermarry with any other. I believe there is no instance on record where a Zingara woman has mated with a man of any other race, although it is true that sometimes the males of that race may mate with the females of others; but I think there is no case in history where it can be found that a woman of that race, so exclusive are they, and so strong are their sectional antipathies, has been known to mate with a man of another race. These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society. They impose upon the simple and the weak everywhere. Are those people, by a constitutional amendment, to be put out of the reach of the State in which they live? I mean as a class. If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it: and I think it will be mischievous. I think the honorable Senator from Michigan would not admit the right that the Indians of his neighborhood would have to come in upon Michigan and settle in the midst of that society and obtain the political power of the State, and wield it, perhaps, to his exclusion. I do not know that anybody would agree to that. It is true that our race are not subjected to dangers from that quarter, because we are the strongest, perhaps; but there is a race in contact with this country which, in all characteristics except that of simply making fierce war, is not only our equal, but perhaps our superior. I mean the yellow race; the Mongol race. They outnumber us largely. Of their industry, their skill, and tlieir pertinacity in all worldly affairs, nobody can doubt. They are our neighbors. Recent improvement, the age of fire, has brought their coasts almost in immediate contact with our own. Distance is almost annihilated. They may pour in their millions upon our Pacific coast in a very short time. Are the States to lose control over this immigration? Is the United States to determine that they are to be citizens? I wish to be understood that I consider those people to have rights just the same as we have, but not rights in connection with our Government. If I desire the exercise of my rights I ought to go to my own people, the people of my own blood and lineage, people of the same religion, people of the same beliefs and traditions, and not thrust myself in upon a society of other men entirely different in all those respects from myself. I would not claim that right. Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies. I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow-citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.
Mr. CONNESS. Mr. President, I have failed to learn, from what the Senator has said, what relation what he has said has to the first section of the constitutional amendment before us; but that part of the question I propose leaving to the honorable gentleman who has charge of this resolution. As, however, the State of California has been so carefully guarded from time to time by the Senator from Pennsylvania and others, and the passage, not only of this amendment, but of tho so-called civil rights bill, has been deprecated because of its pernicious influence upon society in California, owing to the contiguity of the Chinese and Mongolians to that favored land, I may be excused for saying a few words on the subject.
If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypies, (and which I concede to him, for I know nothing to the contrary,) he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the proposition before the Senate, or even the proposition contained in the civil rights bill, so far as it involves the Chinese and us.
The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.
Now, I will say, for the benefit of my friend, that he may know something about the Chinese in future, that this portion of our population, namely, the children of Mongolian parentage, born in California, is very small indeed, and never promises to be large, notwithstanding our near neighborhood to the Celestial land. The habits of those people, and their religion, appear to demand that they all return to their own country at some time or other, either alive or dead. There are, perhaps, in California today about forty thousand Chinese — from forty to forty-five thousand. Those persons return invariably, while others take their places, and, as I before observed, if they do not return alive their bones are carefully gathered up and sent back to the Flowery Land. It is not an unusual circumstance that the clipper ships trading between San Francisco and China carry at a time three or four hundred human remains of these Chinese. When interred in our State they are not interred deep in the earth, but laid very near the surface, and then mounds of earth are laid over them, so that the process of disinterment is very easy. That is their habit and custom; and as soon as they are fit for transmission to their own country they are taken up with great regularity and sent there. None of their bones are allowed to remain. They will return, then, either living or dead.
Another feature connected with them is, that they do not bring their females to our country but in very limited numbers, and rarely ever in connection with families; so that their progeny in California is very small indeed. From the description we have had from the honorable Senator from Pennsylvania of the Gypsies, the progeny of all Mongolians in California is not so formidable in numbers as that of the Gypsies in Pennsylvania. We are not troubled with them at all. Indeed, it is only in exceptional cases that they have children in our State: and therefore the alarming aspect of the application of this provision to California, or any other land to which the Chinese may come as immigrants, is simply a fiction in the brain of persons who deprecate it, and that alone.
I wish now to address a few words to what the Senator from Pennsylvania has said as to the rights that California may claim as against the incursion of objectionable population from other States and countries. The State of California at various times has passed laws restrictive of Chinese immigration. It will be remembered that the Chinese came to our State, as others did from all parts of the world, to gather gold in large quantities, it being found there. The interference with our own people in the mines by them was deprecated by and generally objectionable to the miners in California. The Chinese are re-
- - - - -
garded, also, not with favor as an addition to the population in a social point of view; not that there is any intercourse between the two classes of persons there, but they are not regarded as pleasant neighbors; their habits are not of a character that make them at all an inviting class to have near you, and the people so generally regard them. But in their habits otherwise, they are a docile, industrious people, and they are now passing from mining into other branches of industry and labor. They are found employed as servants in a great many families and in the kitchens of hotels; they are found as farm hands in the fields; and latterly they are employed by thousands — indeed, I suppose there are from six to seven thousand of them now employed in building the Pacific railroad. They are there found to be very valuable laborers, patient and effective; and, I suppose, before the present year closes, ten or fifteen thousand of them, at least, will be employed on that great work.
The State of California has undertaken, at different times, to pass restrictive statutes as to the Chinese. The State has imposed a tax on their right to work the mines, and collected it ever since the State has been organized — a tax of four dollars a month on each Chinaman; but the Chinese could afford to pay that and still work in the mines, and they have done so. Various acts have been passed imposing a poll tax or head tax, a capitation tax, upon their arrival at the port of San Francisco; but all such laws, when tested before the supreme court of the State of California, the supreme tribunal of that people, have been decided to be unconstitutional and void.
Mr. HOWARD. A very just and constitutional decision, undoubtedly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.