Replies

They need to revisit the Elk vs. Wilkins decision. That is the "correct" ruling regarding the 14th Amendment; -because it actually takes into account the intentions of the people that drafted the Amendment.

In Elk, they ruled that birthright citizenship was only confered upon those that fell completely within the jurisdiction of the United States, and owing it "direct and immediate allegiance".

The Wong decision simply ignored the rulings laid down in the Elk and even Slaughterhouse decisions.

But he was a foreigner.

the words "foreigner" and alien" are not subordinate to the following clause.

It is made rather clear later that "foreigners, aliens" was indeed only referring to the children born in the US to ambassadors, diplomats and the like.

Just after Howard put forth the citizenship clause as an amendment to the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator Cowan of Pennsylvania asked Howard to define "citizenship of the United States."

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?

Senator Howard did not respond to him, instead Senator Conness of California did. He wrote in part:

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...

When he finished, Senator Howard spoke next. He offered absolutely no objection to what Conness had said, nor elaborated any further on the point of children born to non-citizen parents being citizens by birth.

He simply said that there was a typo in the amendment (it said "States" instead of "State").

Nor did any other senator object to what Conness had said.