Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AuntB; JCBreckenridge
If you're going to quote Senator Jacob Howard, then you need to understand what he was saying.

That quote was made by Senator Howard after the following exchange, which took place during a Senate session in which Howard was present:

Senator Fessenden: "Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country."

Senator Wade: "The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside 'near' the United States, in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington."

Senator Howard was there, but he made no objection to that definition.

And shortly after that, Howard made his statement that you quoted (which does not include the word "AND" between the 2nd and 3rd clauses - indicating that's not a LIST of 3 separate things, but a RESTATEMENT of the same thing 3 times.

As well, Senator Conness of California had this to say:

"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; now it is proposed to incorporate the 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 of the United States.

So Senator Conness says the law will declare that children born in the United States of Chinese, non-citizen parents will be citizens.

This is in direct and absolute contradiction to the way you are interpreting Senator Howard's words.

But Senator Howard makes no objection at all.

Why not? It's obvious. Jacob Howard wasn't saying what you claim he was saying.

Neither the grammar of his sentence, nor the exchange that came before his quote, nor the discussion that came after his quote, support the interpretation that you have given it.

When Sen. Howard said, "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 persons," it is clear that he was simply restating three things that meant the same thing:

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 persons.

21 posted on 04/24/2013 12:37:34 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Winston; Carry_Okie

I’m not going to waste hours arguing with anyone about the meaning of the 14 th amendment. To anyone who isn’t an open border hack, the meaning was NEVER to allow illegal aliens to drop babies here and have them be citizens. NEVER!

DONE with this discussion!


23 posted on 04/24/2013 12:42:40 PM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Winston
We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.

This is a tacit admission that the 14th Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to the children of aliens. He wants it to be that way.

In fact, the citizenship clause is written in the present tense. The overt reason was to deal with the uncertain state of affairs pursuant to the end of the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves. In fact it was an unnecessary statement for people pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The real reason for the clause was to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to persons other than natural persons, i.e., corporations. It was later admitted by Senators Bingham and Conkling.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant those that were American 'subjects.' It did not mean that one became "a subject" by merely being within the national boundaries. One was "subject" by virtue of citizenship. I suggest you consult a law dictionary of that time to confirm the meaning of the term.

25 posted on 04/24/2013 1:35:12 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson