Replies

THAT is the context of Trumbull's comments. INDIANS.

Your problem is that you insist interpreting this as an "either/or..." situation; as if it were some sort of zero-sum game. If this particular group was not included, then that group had to be included. It is not.

Doolittle wanted that provision regarding Indians in there because the 1866 Civil Rights Act (the current law) had a clause regarding Indians, and he felt that it was wise for the Amendment to also have clause provision regarding Indians.

The 1866 Civil Rights Act read :

"“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

The act excluded (automatic) birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

BTW, they specifically added that exclusion regarding Indians to the statute because any Indian, by virtue of being an indigenous person, can claim they are not subject to any "foreign" power.

The other Senators told him that it (his provision) was unnecessary. Under the 14th Amendment, it had to be determined of all persons born in the U.S. wether they were citizens by birth or not. Either they were subject to the "full and complete jurisdiction" of the U.S., or, they were not. And this had to be ascertained of all groups, not just one or the other.

The citizenship clause has NOTHING to do with the parents, with the exception of those parents who are ambassadors and diplomats.

The ALLEGIANCE is referring to the PERSONS BORN. NOT their parents.

And as soon as you tell me precisely how to ascertain an infant's personal "allegiance", one way or another, at birth, then you are simply blowing smoke. I want to know specific, step by step instructions, OK? So then we can enshrine these provisions into law and have specific legal guidelines for every parent to follow.

You're full of it. Again, a newborn infant has absolutely no capacity to make those kinds of decisions. If you still don't believe me, I suggest you go talk to anyone involved with the Pediatric or Neurological Medicine, -just for starters.

The lawmakers obviously take all of this into account when writing laws regarding the acquisition of citizenship.The parents' status, under the jurisdiction, determines an infant's status at birth.

The citizenship clause has everything to do with the parents of a given child:

"“Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment's first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “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.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.”

That is what the Framers meant by, "born... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".

Your problem is that you insist interpreting this as an "either/or..." situation; as if it were some sort of zero-sum game. If this particular group was not included, then that group had to be included. It is not.

No, the problem is yours, and your taking words that were made in a very specific context, and attempting to apply them to every other context.

Doolittle wanted that provision regarding Indians in there because the 1866 Civil Rights Act (the current law) had a clause regarding Indians, and he felt that it was wise for the Amendment to also have clause provision regarding Indians.

Yes, and Howard and others opposed it for two primary reasons. One, because "not taxed" could allow for all sorts of weirdness such as taxing Indians in order to make them citizens, and two, because it was redundant.

As Howard said immediately upon the proposal:

I hope that the 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.

BTW, they specifically added that exclusion regarding Indians to the statute because any Indian, by virtue of being an indigenous person, can claim they are not subject to any "foreign" power.

No. It was specifically added because THE INDIANS THEMSELVES WERE "FOREIGN" POWERS! That's why we dealt with them via TREATIES! This had been the case even throughout the colonial period.

Good grief! Were you not born here? Did you never attend school here or study US history in any way, shape or form?

And as soon as you tell me precisely how to ascertain an infant's personal "allegiance", one way or another, at birth, then you are simply blowing smoke.

Pay attention! You keep conflating things that Trumbull said about the Fourteenth Amendment and what Bingham said about the Civil Rights Act.

Trumbull: "What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Again, he's referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, which says "All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." So Trumbull here is referring to the PERSONS BORN, NOT their parents.

The citizenship clause has everything to do with the parents of a given child:

"“Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment's first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “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.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.”

First, Bingham is NOT referring to the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, he was NOT the framer of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, have a nice weekend.