Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are correct. That is what happens when the masses receive a low quality education. Grammar knowledge/skills are atrocious.
You can fly to Bombay via Moscow, via Athens or via Cairo.
Note that in the above example the comma could be replaced by the word "or," but the result would be rather clumsy:
You can fly to Bombay via Moscow or via Athens or via Cairo.
You should probably look back at Howard's quote before trying to give grammar lessons. Yours do not apply.
Howard, in a speech before the Senate, said this: "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 embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Howard's "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors" is not a conjunction. The clause "who belong to the families of embassadors" is a qualifier in this spoken sentence.
This is obvious from the context of the debate that follows. Senators Dollittle and Howard have an exchange about Indians, where Howard argues that Indians maintaining their tribal relation are not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as they are quasi foreign nations. Sen. Cowan then remarks that Chinese and Gypsy children should not be citizens, making an argument that the amendment is unwise on that basis.
Sen. Conness, who is aligned with Howard, responds to the discussion of the children of Chinese and Gypsies. He says that we have already declared that the children of Chinese parents shall be citizens by law, and that we should incorporate that provision into the Constitution--the fundamental instrument of the nation.
This oral statement can be clearly understood through context. Howard did not mean that the 14th would not apply to the children of foreigners. He meant that it would not apply to the children of ambassadors.
Try telling that to UW. They said an out-of-state high school transcript indicated an out-of-state residence for an incoming freshman in the fall of the same year of a May/June high school graduation. No one has ever been able to successfully dispute that unless the parent who lists the incoming student as a dependent for tax purposes (FAFSA confirmed) was transferred to WI by their employer, OR the student had legally emancipated from their parent(s). It had absolutely NOTHING to do with whatever is considered to be "common law" domicile.
You're going way off into the weeds because you can't refute actual facts.
No parents involved. No dependent on anyone's tax return. 23 year old married man. They did charge him out of state tuition the first semester but dropped it after he objected.
And he made it clear he would take them to court with some support from the law school so they folded.
On a fresh high school graduate the university may be able to assert lack of intent to stay but not on a married man over 21. So he is clearly domiciled in WI and no where else.
Adding a "or" to the sentence a few times to completely change its meaning might be fun, but has no basis in grammar. Commas only act as conjunctions to separate subjects of a list when accompanied by an actual conjunction.
The full context only bolsters that interpretation, since the sentence would not only need a conjunction, it would also need to say "those who belong to the families of ambassadors" or just "belong to the families of ambassadors" if it were a running list of people excluded from the 14th Amendment. The key there is the word "who" because it is a relative pronoun and thus requires a subject. Absent the another noun, the only remaining subjects are the "foreigners" and "aliens" so those must be the subject of the "who".
In other words, you can say "those who belong to the families of ambassadors" or (in a list) "foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to the families of ambassadors", but in Sen. Howard's sentence, the absence of an actual conjunction and the presence of the word "who" means that "aliens" is a descriptor of "foreigners" both of which are encompassed as the subject of the relative pronoun "who" - in other words foreigners are both aliens and members of the ambassadors' families.
Read it aloud while pausing for the commas and it will make sense to you. ". . . citizenship will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, [who are] aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
Consider the following:
Example 1: I will not have dinner with Bob and Jesse, my uncles, who belong to families of my neighbors.
(the subjects of the "who" there is Bob and Jesse who are my uncles)
Example 2: I will not have dinner with Bob and Jesse, my uncles, and those who belong to families of my neighbors.
(the subjects of the "who" there is "those" and the presence of the conjunction "and" makes it a list of 3 categories of people with whom I will not have dinner; "families of my neighbors, my uncles, and Bob and Jesse)
Example 3: I will not have dinner with Bob and Jesse, or my uncles, or who belong to families of my neighbors.
(this sentence is conflicted and incorrect because the presence of the "or" separates Bob, Jesse, my uncles, and my neighbors' families, but leaves no subject for the relative pronoun "who" - that is why you would also need a "those" before the "who").
My reading is example 1, which mirrors the language of the Constitution itself. You seem to think Example 2 is what the Constitution meant to say, but even with the insertion of the word "or" twice, without a "those" as the subject of the relative pronoun "who" your interpretation is still grammatical gobbledygook.
OK English professor. The point is illegal aliens are foreign and alien as ambassadors and are not authorized to even enter or be in US jurisdiction. It's just silly to pretend invaders' children were intended to get birthright citizenship.
Legal visitors are not immigrants leave alone illegal aliens not being immigrants. A legal permanent resident is an immigrant. An illegal alien is a classification of invader.
Immigrants are people who immigrated. They can be lawful or unlawful. Using terms like invader is stupid and shows that all you have are emotional appeals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
I was replying to a side discussion about the cost of a poor legal immigrant vs a poor illegal alien.
A child born to an unauthorized guest is an unauthorized guest too.
The constitution disagrees. The child is a host--it is a US citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The Constitution isn't being "altered," it's being restored:
Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States"
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
You should probably look back at Howard's quote before trying to give grammar lessons. Yours do not apply.
Howard, in a speech before the Senate, said this: "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 embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Howard's "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors" is not a conjunction. The clause "who belong to the families of embassadors" is a qualifier in this spoken sentence.
This is obvious from the context of the debate that follows. Senators Dollittle and Howard have an exchange about Indians, where Howard argues that Indians maintaining their tribal relation are not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as they are quasi foreign nations. Sen. Cowan then remarks that Chinese and Gypsy children should not be citizens, making an argument that the amendment is unwise on that basis.
Sen. Conness, who is aligned with Howard, responds to the discussion of the children of Chinese and Gypsies. He says that we have already declared that the children of Chinese parents shall be citizens by law, and that we should incorporate that provision into the Constitution--the fundamental instrument of the nation.
This oral statement can be clearly understood through context. Howard did not mean that the 14th would not apply to the children of foreigners. He meant that it would not apply to the children of ambassadors.
You are ove looking that around 1924 illegal aliens were classified as essentially invaders. Illegal aliens are not immigrants, not even lawful visitors. Why is that so hard for some to grasp?
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien parent.
1) The Hausding case was not decided by the Supreme Court.
2) The Hausding case is somewhat complicated. Hausding had been born in America, but then moved to Germany, where he lived into adulthood, and had entered "into the majority" as a German citizen, and thus had maintained allegiance to Germany as an adult.
"Can oneborn a foreign subject, but within the United States, make the option after his majority, and while still living abroad, to adopt the citizenship of his birthplace? It seems not, and that he must change his allegiance by emigration and legal process of naturalization."
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
And the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which made a specific legislative exception for the US-born children of members of aboriginal US Tribes. Prior to that, even though born in the US, they were ineligible for 14th Amendment citizenship.
Wrong. Indians were only refused US citizenship if they were born on an Indian Reservation, which was defacto considered a foreign country. Natives who were born off the reservations were full US citizens.
It doesn't matter if you amend the constitution or not. It still has to be interpreted by anyone acting under it. This is a question of interpretation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
