[Cyropaedia]

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.

[Michael Michael]

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

And it was ascertained that children born to non-citizen immigrants fell within the complete jurisdiction of the United States.

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

No, he was talking about the Indians being sovereign.

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

A politically-correct term for "Indian."

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.

Yes, they were "quasi foreign" because they inhabited the United States. Can't be truly foreign if you're not truly foreign. But they were dealt with in every way as if they truly were a foreign nation.

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.

No, Howard's quote only shows that they couldn't be true foreign nations because they inhabited the US, and not some foreign territory.

But simply being born here does not automatically qualify a person for citizenship.

Right. If you were born to an Indian, or your parents were ambassadors or other foreign diplomats, you were not considered to be a US citizen by birth. But as Howard said, it will "include every other class of persons."

They have to be subject to the "complete jurisdiction" of the U.S..

Yes. And those born to immigrant parents were subject to the "complete jurisdiction of the United States."

Here, check out your buddy Trumbull:

Can you sue a Navajoe 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.

Do we make treaties with immigrants? Nope. We sure don't. So there you have it.

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.

What was acknowledged was that the children born to immigrants were US citizens by birth. This issue was specifically brought up, it was answered that they were, that it was already law under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and that it would remain the same under the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause. And the issue was never brought up again.