Replies

This is a transcription, so the comma reflects what the transcriber understood the person to mean.

Good point.

Mind you, the Senate offices would approve the transcription.

Not a good point insofar as it relates to the meaning of Howard's statement. Seriously, do you think after the pages and pages of transcriptions were typeset, someone went and checked that every comma was in its proper place?

On the opening post you truncated his words in a significant way:

"This will not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."

"Foreigners, aliens" is repetitive; they mean the same things. The repetition is rhetorical. "Who belong to the families of ambassadors" qualifies "foreigner (aliens)." Is every foreigner excluded? No. Only "foreigners who belong to the families of ambassadors." Howard is pointing how how the Amendment is declaratory of existing law, and "existing law" (the common law provided for this exception).

"But will include every other class of persons" can hardly be reduced to meaning "only citizens." Only a very narrow class of foreigners is excluded (ambassadors); "every other class of person" is included.

At first blush. United States v Wong Kim seems to establish that all children born on US soil, even of aliens, are granted citizenship.

It's hardly just first blush: that point is hammered home every way and Sunday throughout the 50 plus page opinion.

Now, illegal aliens may not be an occupying army, and as Christians we would pause before labeling them enemies, but the point is that their loyalty remains to their homeland, not to the United States, as they have neither renounced their prior citizenship, nor taken any action towards aquiring U.S. citizenship,

This point fails both on fact and law. The argument can be made that an illegal alien desperate fleeing persecution or poverty in his/her home country has little allegiance (in the sense of fealty) to that country. Whereas, the legal alien here on an extended work visa or green card may well intend to return home to his/her home country (to which the person retains permanent allegiance.

In any event, consider this portion of the WKA opinion:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides[.}

The legal/illegal distinction simply doesn't bear on the question of jurisdiction. Both are subject to U.S. jurisdiction (save for ambassadors). One can't read "jurisdiction" to mean one thing when talking about legal aliens and then claim it means something else when talking about illegals.

Nor would it seem transience is a meaningful distinction, given the language above explicitly saying children born of aliens present here but temporarily are still citizens.

I get the point that illegality and anchor babies are abusive. But the answer is Amendment.