(06-30-2026 03:18 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: (06-30-2026 02:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Here is the text you claim reads on it -- ""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."
He seems to be describing one class of folks -- people "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers".
Quote: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
You are so wrong on the reading of this...
A) Foreigners
B) Aliens
c) Families of ambassadors/foreign ministers (Which would never be referred to on the floor as Foreigners or Aliens)
d) and every other class of persons
So in your view, Howard includes *everyone*. A-D make up the entire population of the world. Cool.
Quote:(the wording of his statement on "d', means he must have been referring to multiple classes of people previously, not 1 individual class of persons.)
I guess you missed the 'will include' and the 'does not include [d]'. Your entire explanation above is bolloxed since you missed the term 'will not include'.
And no, instead of making up context as you do - refer to the total in the original. He was not referring to others previously. Nor had he. Please dont make things up.
Here is what said -- what is *not included* is one set of persons -- the general notion that everyone who adhered to 'droit du sol' (or the soil controls citizenship). That is foreigners, aliens who are are ambassadors or consul. The general rule of droit du sol.
Everyone else (in this case everyone in the United States *except* the group named) *is included*.
Literally -- chart the sentence. The lack of conjunctive words is telling. The fact that you have to make up conjunctive words imparting formal logic is also telling.
Quote:In fact, he Did clear up what he said:
Howard clarified his statement during the original congressional debate over the amendment describing the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, which reads: “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”. He said of the exclusion of Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties:
In fact the fact he added Indians as another CLASS of persons to whom he would not grant authority even though they were born on US soil.
As children of foreign parents, birthright children were subject to a foreign power (through their parents).
You say he 'clarified his statement'. What did he say *exactly* to clarify it? You seemingly omitted that important aspect of *what* he said.
Quote:Which further clears up this thoughts on birthright citizenship.
You havent quoted a single thing that 'clears up *his* thoughts', mind you.
Your bald unsupported assertions do not 'further clear up his thoughts'.
Sigh. Dude, *even if* Howard thought 'persons not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' -- the real test of the issue is what the people that *voted* on it and in the positions of power thought of it.
As an example -- lets say I author a bill that says 'the US Treasury will pay everyone 20 thousand dollars, right now'. I make a comment that *my view* is that 'everyone means everyone *except* people with the word 'Saint' in an online nickname.'
It doesnt matter a rats ass when the bill is passed with the term 'everyone'. Just because I dont think a broad term includes you doesnt mean squat. What is important is that a broad term was used.
Again, the Congressional Record is replete with numerous instances of discussion on the phrase *by the people that voted for it* -- and Howard very well knew of those discussions. He was a participant in them. The people that voted the issue in almost to a unanimity were of the opinion that the phrase was exactly as the majority held today, and that of the leading case on it prior decided in the 1890s.
The exact issue was brought to the attention of the broadness of the phrase in normal English. Did Howard amend the bill to clarify his point (as you make the case above of this raft of clarifications)? No, he didnt bother to amend the language to express that concept which you claim he said it meant. To the people voting on broad as hades language.
He knew the broad, common meaning. If he had meant something as so much different than the broad, common meaning, he would have amended it. As such, there was no amendment. ANd the broad phrase was intact. With reams of evidence from those that voted on it that todays interpretation (the broad, general one) was the concept that they approved. There is ZERO evidence that the people who voted on it believed in the word / phrase / dictionary contortions that you ascribe to it. Zero. Nada. Nil. Nothing.
![[Image: wHzFQ3RaN668.jpeg]](https://media.scored.co/post/wHzFQ3RaN668.jpeg)
