-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) claims that birthright citizenship “undermines the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Arizona Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills alleged that “if you go back to the original intent of the drafters … it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon aliens.” Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) trots out the old canard that the Citizenship Clause was drafted to “address slavery, not immigration.”
When one looks at the 1866 Senate debate regarding the 14th Amendment, the facts don’t support these claims.
In 1866, the anchor babies of concern were Chinese. Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA), who later voted against the amendment, was worried about Gypsies in Pennsylvania and Chinese in California overrunning the country if their children were granted citizenship.
Senator John Conness (R-CA) understood the amendment’s meaning to extend 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.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, claimed “During the debate on the 14th Amendment in 1866, a senator who helped draft the amendment said it would ‘not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.’” This is nothing short of deceptive editing of Senator Howard Jacob (R-MI), who authored the amendment. Senator Jacob affirmed its plain meaning:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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. [Emphasis added]
When politicians lie and distort history to this extent, they conceal the true motivation behind their desire to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. If their intentions are honorable, why lie about the original intent of the 14th Amendment?
H/T: PFAW, The Green Bag (James C. Ho).
Tom Delay gerrymandered a good district for him that runs north and west of San Antonio.
Rep. Lamar Smith replaced John Conyers in this position. This was one of the reasons I did not think throwing the democrats out as some suggested was a good idea. There were many very conservative Texas politicians just waiting to take their spots as committee chairs.
Rae:
In the part of the amendment where it says All persons.
Mr. Stone,
For some reason I happen to know about the beginning and ends of this process…
Here are a few useful numbers….
· The Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure and Texas Disciplinary Rules of
Professional Conduct are available under “client assistance and grievance” on
texasbar.com.
· For more information call:
Grievance Hotline – 800.932.1900
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel – 877.953.5535
I also worked for the Judiciary in the state of Texas….. He could claim an argument for the modification of existing law….which is in the Rules of Civil Procedure…. kind of a catch all….
I know Lamar….I want to help him as much as possible here is his DC page with all of the relevant contact numbers….
As they say in elections vote early and vote often…Chicago style…. I will take liberty and say…Call early….Call often…
And he is not to let a press op go unchecked…. I think he is blaming the INS for the recent terrorist in west Texas…. Never mind the person was a student…. Hell even the USDA used to hand out pamphlets to tell you how to use fertilizer to create a bomb to make retention ponds… But they might have to look inward first….
The doors were open in 1866 to anyone who could make it here.
They’re still open, just go to Mexico prior to your final destination. Someone there will be willing to guide you for a fee.
You can go back at anytime. Your free to come and go as you please.
Ronald Stone, Rep Smith is a Yale graduate and and an SMU law graduate.
If Rep. Lamar Smith is a lawyer, he should be reported to his state bar association for unethical conduct. Presumably, it is unethical for a lawyer in Texas to purposely mislead, prevaricate, or “lie” in the course of his duties as an elected official.
Damn those relevant facts getting in the way of Google.
Rae,
Were these Senators lying during the debates that were quoted above? Just because the term illegal immigrants can’t be found in Google prior to 1866 is irrelevant. As a country, at that time we did not consider people as illegals. We called them immigrants until such acts as the Chinese Exclusion Act and later on in the 1900’s when immigration was limited or restricted by the Immigration Act of 1921 and its amended versions in later years. The doors were open in 1866 to anyone who could make it here. That was the policy and that is why the 14th Amendment was used to make sure that children of those immigrants were deemed citizens at birth.
“When one looks at the 1866 Senate debate regarding the 14th Amendment, the facts don’t support these claims.”
Since when did the GOP allow facts to get in the way of their fantasies?
I was thinking about the Founding Father’s intent when drafting the Constitution. I further thought about the authors intent when drafting the various amendments. Without the ability to time travel, or get inside a corpses decaying head, who are we to intimately know what the framers and authors meant at the time? We don’t but they did draft each so we get an idea of the context within which they were written. And I don’t think either the Constitution or amendments were written to say that the meanings at the time were to remain strictly adhered to. IMHO, they each knew that times do a’change, and that each would take on a different intent with time. But, they also knew that when drafting said documents, that the bases for each was the same – that all provision apply to all, not just to those around at the time of the original drafting.
Nicely done Rae !!!!!
Where/when during the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, in U.S. Congress or in the various states, was the citizenship of those who are in this country illegally ever discussed?
The children of our legal immigrants had always been granted citizenship when their fathers were naturalized. Their wives were also naturalized in the process. But all were considered to be naturalized citizens.
Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment the children of slaves followed the condition of their mothers. This was known as the doctrine of partus sequitor ventrum. Slaves were considered to be chattel. Much like the offspring of a cow would be the property of whoever’s cow delivered the offspring, the child of a slave was treated the same way. They were the property of their owner.
A free woman followed the condition of her husband when married, and her offspring followed the condition of their father. This is the doctrine of partus sequitur patrum.
A bastard child followed the condition of their mother. This was true even if a man claimed that child to be his offspring. The product of a slaveowner and a slave woman was born a slave.
These doctrines of Roman civil law were adopted as part of the common law, and were the law of the United States upon its founding.
More of this history can be read at Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partus_sequitur_ventrem
The ‘confusion’ was encountered because of the Chinese Exclusion Act. While that Act was in force, Chinese immigrants could not acquire U.S. citizenship. Their children, though born here of parents who were both free and permanently domiciled here, were left without U.S. Citizenship. This led to the now infamous case of Wong Kim Ark.
A search of Google Books for the term “illegal immigrant” with the search criteria narrowed to only those works published between Jan 1, 1770–Dec 31, 1866 does well to demonstrate that illegal immigration was not even a consideration prior to 1866. It would, therefore, be ludicrous to include it as a consideration to be addressed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Frank,
Well said. These Birthright deniers are simply lying. Not spinning, not shading the truth, but lying when they say the original intent was to not include children born here of foreign parents. This is just one more example of how lies, if told often enough, are believed by those who will not do their homework.
Jim,
There is something we can do about these liars. You can expose them as Nal has here and their constituents can vote them out of office. If they will lie about this, what else are they lying about?
Great topic Nal!!
I really wish there was some way to punish politicians who aren’t simply wrong about history, but dishonest. There’s zero chance of him being voted out by his district, and there’s really nothing the rest of us can do. Scarlet letters or the pillory are sounding better and better though.
one side of the birther issue is Obama should not be president based upon Birth….well McCain could not either based upon his birth in the Panama Canal Zone…. both of at least one parent a US citizen…
and I’ll tell you another dang thang. I said the very same thang de utterr day. What they dun was. Days pitted two fella’s wit da same problem up agaisnt each other. Down here we call dat a cock fight. One dat up til now, Obama has been winnin. But let me tell ya. Dare’s a new sheriff in town. And his name is Buford T. Justice. 🙂
I wonder what the Bush family really thinks of this….
Not sure but I’ll tell you one dang thang. Days aint go-in no where’s where’s dat Juilian-ASS ange gonna B.
You tell’em AY
Bush nixes Denver visit, citing invite to Assange
http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=14142711
Why do you want to try to bring ‘facts’ and ‘evidence’ into this critical debate? That is way too dangerous to allow. Once you start down that road there may be no stopping.
Every tax cut in the last 40 years has resulted in reduced revenue, every tax increase has resulted in increased revenue. But we know that is not true because these same people have told us so. Removing oversight and regulation on business has ended up with worse safety records, increased contamination of foods, record fraud and the worst financial meltdown in the modern era but we know business will self-regulate and do better without oversight because these same people have told us its true. Higher global temperatures increase the amount of moisture in the air but we know there is no global warming because they have told us that the huge snowfalls the last few years prove it does not exist.
Arizona Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills alleged that “if you go back to the original intent of the drafters … it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon aliens.”
————
Because we are dumbfounding education….. Keep em barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen…. that will teach them…
What would you expect…. If I recall… one side of the birther issue is Obama should not be president based upon Birth….well McCain could not either based upon his birth in the Panama Canal Zone…. both of at least one parent a US citizen…
Then the other side having children here when you are not a US Citizen…. Screw that Ellis Island….So if a person’s parents are immigrating in the 1800’s and is born before they are naturalized then they should be deported…. I wonder what the Bush family really thinks of this….
I’m hoping Vitter’s fondness for old canards gives him the trots. Perhaps a painful and persistent but not fatal venereal disease. Being said, that this lying clown is a Senator from the State of Lousy-ana says everything one needs to know about the pitiful state of their educational systems and the backwards nature of their generally ignorant and bigoted society.