If you had continued to read the Senate debate from which you quote, you would have seen that the question of birthright citizenship for children of noncitizen aliens (with a couple of exceptions noted) specifically came up, and a key supporter of the amendment specifically stated that it would, if adopted, make birthright citizenship for such children part of the Constitution.
Since there was no federal law restricting immigration when the 14th Amendment was adopted, there was no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.” A reasonable person should recognize that, as a consequence, the framers of the 14th Amendment could not have intended to exclude the children of illegal immigrants from birthright citizenship. If you think that’s a bad policy that ought to be changed, you should support changing the Constitution, not trampling the Constitution to get the policy result you favor.
I quote from the Senate transcript. Sen. Conness of California is speaking:
“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 [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that 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, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens.”
>> If you had continued to read the Senate debate from which you quote, you would have seen that the question of birthright citizenship for children of noncitizen aliens (with a couple of exceptions noted) specifically came up, and a key supporter of the amendment specifically stated that it would, if adopted, make birthright citizenship for such children part of the Constitution. <<
An interesting rebuttal. Now for my counter-rebuttal:
>> Since there was no federal law restricting immigration when the 14th Amendment was adopted, there was no such thing as an “illegal immigrant.” <<
The “few exceptions” you mention are those in which it is evident that the resident does not owe allegiance to the United States (see post 14 about owing allegiances).
Read what Sen. Cowan went on to say:
“It is perfectly clear that a man born in a country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.”
Or Sen. Trumbull:
“It cannot be said that any Indian who owes allegiance, partial if you will, to any other govenrment, that he shall be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.””