The subject may have been about Indians, but this does include OTHER foreigners and aliens and is not only about the diplomat and ambassador crowd. Saying it only applies to Indians is being disingenuous.
You're taking my words out of context. You seem to be quite good at that.
When I said "What foreigners, aliens?" I was referring to the "foreigners, aliens" that Howard mentioned. And I didn't say he was referring to Indians, I said he was referring only to ambassadors and foreign ministers.
But Trumbull's words spell out what exactly what it means to be "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
And he was speaking in the context of INDIANS.
The provision is that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing any allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense? Is it not understood that that if we want to make arrangements with the Indians to whom he refers we do it by means of a treaty? The Senator himself has brought us a great many treaties this session in order to get control of those people.
You cannot take what was said specifically with regard to Indians, who were a distinctly different class of people compared to immigrants (again, they were considered more akin to ambassadors in diplomats), and assume that those words were intended to apply to immigrants and those born to immigrants or other non-citizens.
To do so is to do simply propagandize.
The facts of the matter are these:
First, those words were stated specifically with regard to Indians who were in a class distinctly different from that of immigrants.
Second, those words were never stated specifically with regard to immigrants.
Third, it was stated by Senator Conness that it was understood that under the amendment that children born to non-citizen Chinese immigrants in California were indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore would be citizens of the United States by having been born in the United States.
Fourth, neither Senators Howard nor Trumbull took
any exception whatsoever to this stated understanding of the amendment as expressed by Senator Conness, nor did any other Senator.
Therefore it is rather obviously clear that the originator of the citizenship clause himself understood it to mean just as Senator Conness had expressed it to mean, and that those born in the United States save for Indians and ambassadors and other diplomats, were citizens of the United States by birth regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
And it is also just as rather clearly obvious that you are doing little more than playing disingenuous word games for the purpose of promulgating some sort of political agenda.
You're taking my words out of context. You seem to be quite good at that. And you're not grasping the larger meaning of the 14th Amendment.
And he was speaking in the context of INDIANS.
There's noway on earth you can get around the "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof;" the meaning and intent behind those words. They not only apply to the Indians but those words also apply to citizens, foreigners, aliens, and all other stripes. The context of those words go much farther than Indian tribes. They meaning and intent, as posted above, will endure as long as there is an United States.
If those words in the 14th Amendment were only for Indians the authors should have state as such. They didn't because they don't.