The proof that he is wrong is obvious when one considers the status of Indians as practiced by the authorities after the 14th amendment.
Indians did not get automatic citizenship because they were not regarded as "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof."
Indians were exempt from the provisions of the 14th amendment, though they were, and continuously had been born within the borders.
Indians acquired birth citizenship by the passage of the Indian Citizenship act of 1924, though it is difficult to grasp how congress could change the meaning of an amendment through a legislative act.
Those Mexican, Central American, and South American illegal immigrants coming into the nation would mostly have been regarded as "Indians" under the 1868 understanding of the 14th amendment. If the Indian Citizenship act were repealed, there would be instant legal grounds to deny their children citizenship on that basis alone.
If the US will not grant citizenship to Indians born to tribes within it's borders, why would they grant citizenship to Indians from tribes without it's borders?
They wouldn't. The thought wouldn't have even occurred to them.
But the question remains. If Indians are excluded because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", then how can anyone argue that Foreign citizens somehow are more subject to our jurisdiction than are Indians?
We hung Indians too. We threw Indians in Jail also, yet we deliberately and explicitly did not make their children citizens.
Back to you Jack@$$.
The proof that I am right is the undeniable fact that the United States today (as always) has exercised jurisdiction over foreign nationals living within the United States. Yes, in fact, the U.S. does arrest, prosecute and jail foreign nations, both legal and illegal.
Now, I can't tell if you're actually trying to deny this (a foolish proposition, though you are prone to those) or you're just trying to do another of your dodge-and-weave evasions by talking instead of 19th century Indians. "Is he daft? Or is he just evasive?" That's the question everyone has to answer when dealing with you.
No, DumbDumb, despite your early eagerness and catty comments that you've come up with some resounding answer to my earlier post, the fact remains is that you raised this point and I answered to it 6 months ago!!
This is what's so frustrating with you. When you leave one of your little piles of poo on the Board, I take the time to rub your nose in the correct answer; but like the over-eager puppy you are you don't get the lesson and soil the carpet again. Like now.
It's worthy laying out what I schooled you on back in February. This portion of the story I'll refer to as "Sen. Trumbull and the Indians."
******
"You just block out and plow aside anything inconvenient to your argument. Trumbull repeatedly makes the point that children born here of non-naturalized immigrant are citizens:
"I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).
"I am afraid that we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens."' Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)
"I have already said that in my opinion birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every free-born person in this land is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States, and that the bill now under consideration is but declaratory of what the law now is." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st session. 600 (1866)
Trumbull's statement that children of ambassadors can't be made citizens is the exception to the general rule. There's a reason Trumbull speaks of ambassadors. Contrary to your deliberate misread, ambassadors aren't just some example of "foreign persons." Ambassadors and their children are well-recognized exceptions to the common law rule of birth-citizenship, even as to the children of aliens. Children of run-of-the-mill foreigners are citizens; children of ambassadors are not and cannot be made so. Trumbull is following the common law..
[DL quote of Trumbull] "Then it was suggested that we should make citizens of all persons born in the United States not subject to any foreign power or tribal authority.
Are you now clear that in saying "not subject to any foreign power" Trumbull doesn't mean those non-naturalized Germans giving birth here to citizen offspring? Or do I need to pound this into your head one more time?
The focus here (and the same with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof") ISN'T with children of European aliens. The "great case of Lynch v. Clarke" can be put to the entire House as exemplary of "existing law" with no one batting an eyelid. They all knew this much. It was the same common law rule which had long existed.
But in a jus soli world, Indians pose a unique problem. You don't get this point, and so keep seizing upon language which is primarily concerned with Indian tribes and casting that back onto European immigrants.
[DL]As it should turn out, Indians did NOT get that "birth citizenship" you are always going on about until 1924.
Right. Indians were carved out as an exception alongside the familiar common law exceptions of children of ambassadors and hostile invaders. I said on a prior post "When the common law was adapted in American a third case was presented: Indian tribes.") You act like children of Indians pose some problem to my view: they don't; as usual, I'm two steps ahead of you in the discussion. [Add: Make that two steps, plus 6 months, DumbDumb.]
*******************
But here's more from Trumbull which shows you for the historical illiterate you are:
"Then it was proposed to adopt the amendment as it now stands, that all person born in the United States not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, shall be citizens. What does that phrase 'excluding Indians not taxed' mean? . . . It is a constitutional term used by the men who made the Constitution itself to designate, what? To designate a class of persons who were not a part of our population. They are not counted in the census.
* * *
Whenever they are separated from their tribes, and come within the jurisdiction of the United States so as to be counted, they are citizens of the United States.” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 572 (1866).
Sen. Trumbull highlights that the exclusion for Indians still fully within their tribal loyalties existed at the inception of the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment carry forward this same exclusion. But the exclusion of Indians does not mean foreigners from Europe, etc., were not under U.S. jurisdiction. They were. Trumbull makes that abundantly clear in his comment about children of German immigrants constituting a healthy part of Pennsylvania citizenship.
But the question remains. If Indians are excluded because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", then how can anyone argue that Foreign citizens somehow are more subject to our jurisdiction than are Indians?
Well, Duh, Sen. Trumbull made that very argument and explanation of the Civil Rights Act citizenship clause. And we know that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment was simply the positively state reciprocal of the CRA's "and not subject to any foreign power."
And, of course, someone DID argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that foreigners (aliens) ARE more subject to U.S. jurisdiction than are Indians. And, guess what? That argument WON!!
"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law,), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42."
That excerpt is from a case you really ought to read and attempt to understand -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Really, truly, you need to read it at some point.
So, in summary, I made all these points to you back in February. And your answer? Zippo. Nada. Silence. Your usual "I don't have any answer, so I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and go 'nah, nah, nah . . I'm not listening. . . '" Maybe with 6 months to think about it, you'll muster some half-*ssed reply. But I doubt it.
Now, show everyone what an intellectually lazy fool and incompetent you are and proclaim this is too long for you to understand.