"I don't quite follow your question.
Presently, any foreigner, child or adult, who moves here is not automatically a citizen."
My question was pernicious, a trap, really.
Much electronic ink has been bled here about originalism, original intent, what the Constitution means, how it's not a "living document" but was, rather, fixed in stone as to its meaning back in 1787.
Of course, in 1787, anybody who got to America, so long as he wasn't a black slave, was a citizen in short order. Those were the original conditions, and that was the milieu in which the Constitution was written. There was no INS, and nobody drafting the Constitution thought that immigration should be restricted, at all. The only restriction on immigration in the Constitution is that slaves had to stop being imported after 1801 or 1806, or so, some date early in the 19th Century.
Other than that, the Founders thought that immigration was great. They wanted it, as much as possible, for it made America greater and greater.
Needless to say, conditions have changed since then. Radically. To the point that folks today want to even strip citizenship from people BORN in America, in spite of the 14th Amendment, on some sort of very strained and highly political reading of the words.
But it was true in 1868 too: Americans then wanted as many immigrants as possible, to keep building the country.
So, what I see is not any sort of originalism or "going back to the original meaning" at all. When the Constitution was written and the 14th Amendment was written, nobody had any idea in his head that immigration would be something to be RESTRICTED. They loved immigration. They relied on it to make the country greater and greater. So I get annoyed when people wrap themselves in the mantle of originalism, but then don't REALLY apply what the founders thought about an issue - like immigration (or judicial review) - but rather substitute their own very modern political desiderata as "comporting with the Founders' intent", when farthest from the truth. The Founders did not restrict immigration and did not want to restrict immigration. So anybody trying to read the "original intent" of the Constitution in a way that chokes off immigration is being very, very activist indeed, and is practicing the "living Constitution" doctrine in a very assertive way.
That would not be so bad, if they were not so aggressive (and often abusive) of anybody who opposes them.
When I asked my question about someone being born outside the States automatically getting citizenship by moving here, I was thinking in terms of original intent, and I was specifically thinking of Alexander Hamilton.
There's another component at work, that not very originalist either. Plenty of folks would welcome in Alexander Hamilton and the English with open arms. Indeed, there is a flood of illegal Eastern European immigration into America, which has brought bad side effects like the Russian Mafia, and yet I never see the anti-immigrant viewpoint expressed about the need to get all these damned Russians and Poles out of the country. No, it's Hispanics that are the target people are talking about putting up minefield and automatic guns to keep out.
I don't see much Constitutional at work in all of this sentiment, nor do I see anything originalist at all. I just see a selective nativist sentiment and a lot of political games being played with language, to try and couch extremely activist (and, I believe, unwise) politics in an originalist mantle.
My question, at heart, was really whether or not Alexander Hamilton should have been permitted to become an American by simply moving here. That was the original situation of the Constitutional era. That was the reference point of the Founders.
Thanks for the effort on your post.
First off, the birthright citizenship came after the Civil War, not during the time of the Founders.
The Founders were not "Thrilled" with immigration. Ben Franklin was concerned about the German presence in Pennsylvania and the border was shut down up in Maine because of the French-Canadian influence.
You mention Poles and Russians as being viewed differently than Mexicans. I believe that is because Poles and Russians are not a threat to overrun our country.
Mexicans are doing just that and many are quite vocal about retaking our southwest. Also, there is a difference in importing Europeans who assimilate and Mexicans and Muslims who have little desire to do so. Of course, I want Russian organized crime to be hammered, just like we had to with Italian organized crime.
Perhaps, but the Founding Fathers were not silent on the subject of immigration. Article 1, Section 8, Para 4 states: "Congress shall have the power...'To establish a uniform rule of Naturalization,..". The issue of who were able to become citizens was not left to being a free for all, as you imply.
Furthermore, under these powers Congress passed a number of immigration and naturalization laws, among those being:
A. The establishment of "Special Ports of Entry for Immigrants", notably Ellis Island from 1892-1924, its peak years until 1954. Even if an immigrant reached Ellis Island, they could, legally, be turned back to their country of origin.
B. The Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, also known as the Permanent National Origins Quota Act, began a quota system that lasted for 40 years.
C. A preference system was added in 1952 with the Immigration and Nationality Act, giving preference to people with skills needed in the United States, relatives of U.S. citizens, etc.(the relatives of German rocket scientists).
D. The Hart-Celler Act or the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 did away with the quota system, though it kept much of the preference system. (the breach in the dam that led to its breaking).
You are implying that the Founding Fathers were silent on immigration and the fact of its consideration proves otherwise. They were concerned who would become citizens and gave Congress the power to decide who could stay, who could become a citizen and who should, or could, be deported.
There is a boat leaving for France arriving at LaHavre. Au revoir. Bon voyage.