3 ms·
> He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassador
by magicalist 1y ago
> He added that citizenship "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"
yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction.
Meanwhile:
> The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, 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. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.
(the "declared that by law" is referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that Howard used as the basis of the 14th amendment: "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")
- FireBeyond 1y ago> yes, exactly, if you're born to an ambassador in the US, you aren't subject to the jurisdiction. What? Absolutely you are. Are you trying to claim there's some strange diplomatic immunity here?
- magicalist 1y agoNot entirely sure what you're asking, but yes: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-3 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-o-chapter-... > Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” (page is substantially unchanged since the last administration)
- FireBeyond 1y agoI stand corrected. My understanding of diplomatic immunity was that it didn't extend to the families of diplomats or consular employees (but looking at the WP page, it does for diplomatic families, but not consular employees or their families, or is a lot more limited, rather). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#In_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#In_the_Uni...
- Izkata 1y agoI don't think that's quite right... It sounds to me like clarification of a specific example, rather than anything to do with diplomatic immunity. I don't like going to dictionaries for arguments, but look at "subject" adjective definition 1 here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subject > owing obedience or allegiance to the power or dominion of another Merriam-Webster orders their dictionary "oldest known meaning first", and as I understand it the "allegiance" part of this definition is what's been forgotten about, but is what the citizenship argument is about. The first noun definition has a similar mix of meanings. Think of it more like a kingly "these are my subjects (and not someone else's)" rather than a simple "they must obey the law because they're here".