Trump Plans to Challenge the Constitutional Definition of Birthright Citizenship

[Final-Fan]

The following is violating the "keep it short" rule that I tried—but, let's be honest, failed—to abide by earlier. But whenever you are feeling up to it in the future, I'm actually increasingly interested in what led you to have these thoughts about Sen. Trumbull: "And perhaps I’m too “poisoned” by other outside factors that I’ve stated before (such as the context surrounding it, other lawmakers deliberations such as Sen. Trumbull, and more) but I see “foreigners, aliens, [those] who…” in this respect."

As it happens, I came across a very interesting law journal article on the topic of Trumbull's work on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which is widely seen as being equivalent in intent to the 14th Amendment regarding birthright citizenship, including in the views of the members of Congress at that time. (Most, certainly; all, as far as I am aware.)

Trumbull wrote of the bill, "The Bill declares 'all persons' born of parents domiciled in the United States, except untaxed Indians, to be citizens of the United States."

And what does "domiciled" mean, exactly? The article explains in detail. Two quotes that together work as a summary follow:
"In Justice Story's words, domicile is "where [a person] has his true, fixed, permanent home ... to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning"; it is "that place ...in which [a person's] habitation is fixed, without any present intention of moving therefrom."
"Judges evaluating domicile thus asked two questions. First, is a person living in a particular place? Second, does the evidence suggest he or she intends to keep living there indefinitely? If both answers were yes, then the person had domicile in that place."
(A consensual relationship between that person and the government of that place was not required or relevant to the question of domicile. But please note that ambassadors would not be expected to view their embassy as their "true, fixed, permanent home" as I would interpret the phrase.)
[edit:  forgot the link.]

[edit:  I have a confession:  I wrote up the above before I'd finished the article.  Here's Trumbull talking about the actual Amendment itself:  Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens. 

[I like to imagine he then dropped a mic, because I honestly see that as pretty damn conclusive that Trumbull saw "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same way I interpret it, though I'd be very, very interested to hear why you still disagree, if you do still disagree, when you have the time and concentration to spend on it.]

Last edited by Final-Fan - on 15 November 2018