— 30 —
322I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!
We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.
Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:
Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:
TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.
Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.
We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.
We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.
Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.
Keep in mind:
TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:
Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.
Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.
Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.
What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.
We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.
We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.
Bottom line, don't be a jerk.
2 comments on this story
I think the current reading of the citizenship clause is grammatically incorrect, and this has led to all the confusion concerning the author’s intent.
For if the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended as claimed to qualify the opening line “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” why did Sen. Howard, the author, enclose the phrase between a pair of commas?
And, for that matter, why are the enclosing commas omitted in what is similarly claimed as a qualifier—“and not subject to a foreign power”—in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that the same 39th Congress enacted (and the same Committee on Style of both Houses edited) just two months earlier?
More importantly, why did Sen. Doolittle in his remarks during the debate ADD the words “all persons” in quoting the “language” Sen. Howard used, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” to read “all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”?
By enclosing the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within commas, Sen. Howard is conveying the intention that the phrase was NOT intended to act as a qualifier, but as the SECOND of a COMPOUND subject, joined to the FIRST (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States”) by the conjunction “and.”
Placing the first comma before “and” enabled Sen. Howard to avail of the grammatical device of an ELLIPTICAL, allowing him to OMIT the REPEATED noun phrase, “all persons,” in the second subject—to be understood rather than to be stated—inferable from the same noun phrase, “All persons,” in the first subject it is joined to.
In fine, Sen. Howard intended the clause to be read as:
Note the other elliptical—the repeated second object “citizens”—Sen. Howard likewise omitted.
Take note too that this reading Sen. Doolittle quoted as “the language” Sen. Howard used—“All persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is GENERIC, with no time or territorial constraint, and was evidently intended to apply to persons either AT BIRTH (children of US citizens born abroad) or AFTER BIRTH (naturalization of natives in ceded territory), consistent with Sen. Howard’s sponsorship speech:
Evidently, Sen. Howard achieved what he intended, since this still-unrecognized elliptical undoubtedly:
- “include[s] every other class of persons”
-“settles the great question of citizenship”
-“removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States”
And, confident of its all-embracing reach, Sen. Howard during the debate later added:
“We desired to put this question of citizenship … beyond the legislative power.”
But does the current reading of the clause satisfy fully the author’s declared objectives in drafting a comprehensive definition of what constitutes citizenship of the United States?
NOTE: Link to Congressional Globe citizenship clause Senate debate (pp. 2890-97)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
Illegals do not owe allegiance to this Country. They are criminals breaking both Federal and State laws coming into the United States, and staying in the States. They have no rights under the 14th, and it should be made to show that.