31 Oct '18 00:44>
@philokalia saidNonsense, as Judge Ho's article makes clear:
Check out this quip, though, if we want to talk about original intent and what was on the minds of those who were ratifying it:
[quote]The U.S. Senate record of debate on the birthright citizenship clause shows that Republican Jacob Howard proposed it on May 30, 1866. In his opening statement about this matter, he said:
This amendment which I have offered is simply ...[text shortened]... the children of citizens -- not foreigners, aliens, or even legally present diplomats and the likes.
Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his
amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the
meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first
to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were
overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the
authority to expel persons of different races– in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California– by granting their children citizenship
and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no
allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,”and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.22
In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded
specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
The proposition before us … 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. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the
children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled
to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.
Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized,
because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work
and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”23
No Senator took issue with the consensus
interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan,
Ho points out their error of the interpretation put forward in your article:
Repeal proponents contend that history
supports their position.
First, they quote Howard’s introductory remarks to state that birthright citizenship “will not, of course, include … foreigners.”29
But that reads Howard’s reference to “aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” out of the sentence. It also renders completely meaningless the subsequent
dialogue between Senators Cowan and Conness over the wisdom of extending birthright citizenship to the children of
Chinese immigrants and Gypsies.
Only a fringe group of legal scholars disputes the SCOTUS view, restated many times in the last 120 years.