Replies

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.

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.

More horsesh*t from you. They were simply talking about Indians, and you continue to harp on this erroneous claim that if tribal Indians were excluded from the jurisdiction then other groups were automatically included. Their discussion of tribal Indians was simply that, a discussion about one particular group of people. It also had to be ascertained whether other groups within the United States actually fell within the complete jurisdiction of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment poses the question of proper jurisdiction to everyone residing within the United States. This is why it begins with the words, "All persons...".

As Howard said immediately upon the proposal:

Yes, Howard was simply talking about tribal Indians and their allegiances to their tribes.

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?

Hey dumbsh*t, ever heard of the term, "Native American"...? What is a "Native" American...?

Look at that quotation that you posted by Senator Howard. He refers to Indian Tribes as "quasi foreign nations". So although they had been granted complete autonomy over their tribal lands, they really weren't a "foreign" sovereignty by virtue of the fact that they were an indigenous people, living in an indigenous society. This was a unique distinction that the rest of the countries throughout the world could not make. So to avoid any possible games that could be played with semantics, they added that exemption to the statute.

Indian tribes were like "foreign" nations, but in another respect, it could be argued, that they were not. Howard's quote shows that lawmakers realized that there were possible "gray areas" with regards to that issue.

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.

But simply being born here does not automatically qualify a person for citizenship. They have to be subject to the "complete jurisdiction" of the U.S.. And since the Fourteenth Amendment did not suddenly transform the cognitive abilities of newborn infants, the infant's status still must be determined through its parents. Its status at birth cannot be determined independently of its parents. It has no capacity to form any "national allegiances".

So citizenship is acquired in the same fashion as it was under the 1866 Civil Rights Act (from which the 14th Amendment was derived). And the Senators acknowledged this fact.