Replies

Are you claiming these children are children of ambassadors?

No?

Then I guess it would be unwise to strip them of their citizenship - which is based on the same exact thing as your own citizenship is based - being born in America.

Or are we now making it a requirement that there are additional hoops that need to be jumped for some people and not others? That violates equal protection.

In any case, I only hope you can see how your position serves Obama very well. If birth doesn’t make you a citizen - then the state can strip it from those it does not like, and award it to others who have no connection to America whatsoever.

I bet that would be something Obama would like very much indeed. So, go on - attack the very basis of your own citizenship and pile high the requirements. Just don’t be surprised when you find yourself *outside* the box.

Are you claiming these children are children of ambassadors?

Are you claiming that a nation has a claim on children despite the loyalties of their parents? "Birthright citizenship" is functionally equivalent to a press gang in that it places obligations on people who might just be tourists having no intention of such.

Then I guess it would be unwise to strip them of their citizenship - which is based on the same exact thing as your own citizenship is based - being born in America.

That is false. She and I were born as children of American citizens. That's what makes us legitimate American citizens.

Or are we now making it a requirement that there are additional hoops that need to be jumped for some people and not others? That violates equal protection.

The Fourteenth Amendment instituted those "hoops" in the first place. Its current interpretation (your prefrence) is a legal fiction drawn by progressives with every intention of diluting the culture and serving the interests of the outrageously wealthy. Given that the children of aliens are not legally citizens (despite what the current administrative policy says), the equal protection clause very clearly does not apply to aliens, as it applies its privileges and immunities to the preceding citizenship clause.

This is a completely specious argument. Birth doesn't make one an American citizen, hell, there are people born all over the world that are not American citizens. There are also people born all over the world that are American citizens. The difference with the latter is the citizenship of their parents, just as it is within the borders of the United States.

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.