Quote (Skinned @ Oct 2 2019 05:34am)

Their children aren't though. They are naturalized citizens of the United States. It doesn't say anything about citizenship of parents in the passage and the Constitution in other places forbids punishment for the Corruption of Blood, meaning children cannot be punished or fined for crimes of their parents. Denying person citizenship because of their parents crimes is corruption of the blood. Also, they are not born citizens of anywhere else, so we would have to make this weird non-citizen category that doesn't already exist for your definition to even be congruent. Your interpretation is impossible because of these reasons.

Quote (balrog66 @ Oct 2 2019 05:36am)

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9snl6v/during_the_passage_of_the_14th_amendment_what_was/

This comment covers it fairly well and offers sources for its claims.

The discussion at the time covering the "subject to jurisdiction" part:



And from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause


So the conclusion concerning when 14A was first used to grant citizenship to children of immigrants, was "immediately following its ratification in 1868."

Quote

hile the Citizenship Clause was intended to define as citizens exactly those so defined in the Civil Rights Act,[3][10] which had been debated and passed in the same session of Congress only several months earlier, the clause's author, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, phrased it a little differently. In particular, the two exceptions to citizenship by birth for everyone born in the United States mentioned in the Act, namely, that they had to be "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed", were combined into a single qualification, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and while Howard and others, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, the author of the Civil Rights Act, believed that the formulations were equivalent, others, such as Senator James R. Doolittle from Wisconsin, disagreed, and pushed for an alternative wording.[

Quote (Santara @ Oct 2 2019 06:59am)

A naturalized citizen is one who becomes a citizen after birth.

It DOES say something about the parents, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."



Also from the same source:



It's almost as if... it's been misinterpreted from the outset, even contrary to the assertions of the man who wrote it!

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 2 2019 06:01am)

Their parents are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Our jails are full of them.

You're defining words wrong and calling history a conspiracy this morning.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 2 2019 07:04am)

Illegal immigrants are not subjects of the jurisdiction thereof. They are subjects of a foreign jurisdiction.

You are the one twisting words and it's been explained how and why.

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 2 2019 06:05am)

You're redefining the word. Look it up. And that doesn't address their children who have never been to these other places, no corruption of blood. They would have to not be citizens if anywhere, which doesn't exist. If it does when what is the word for it?

Quote

a citizen or member of a state other than its supreme ruler.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 2 2019 07:10am)

Subject:



Not redefining.

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 2 2019 06:10am)

Link plox

Quote (Santara @ Oct 2 2019 07:11am)

Dude, I'm on my phone. Googled "subject" and grabbed the definition I knew would be there.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 2 2019 12:59pm)

A naturalized citizen is one who becomes a citizen after birth.

It DOES say something about the parents, that they be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."



Also from the same source:



It's almost as if... it's been misinterpreted from the outset, even contrary to the assertions of the man who wrote it!

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 2 2019 06:10am)

Doesn't address their children who we are talking about either.

I'm not arguing about making American citizens out of all illegal immigrants but you're arguing against that I feel like.