I think deleting documents or changing their titles to make them impossible to find would be grounds for termination and a ban from any future government employment.
Pension for Federal Workers, really isn't anything to crow about. 1.1% of your top 3 years average, for each year worked.
So, if you worked for 15 years and were making $80k, that's 16.5% of your top 3 years, or $13,200 /year. It's nothing like it use to be, where people were looking at 80% for life. So, while it's not insignificant, it's not where may people think it is.
My son's MIL retired from the IRS with full pension. It's a considerable amount yearly - I believe she told me she made around 100k while working and bringing in on pension 60k-70k a year. That's not small potatoes.
She retired right as the fed jab mandate was set to go into effect.
God, how did she stand it!?! I've got a grandfather who worked in government most of his career, and apparently when he worked for the IRS, the power tripping there was so bad it gave him ulcers (he lasted a month before requesting/getting transferred out is my understanding)
Probably has to do with being an Officer vs Enlisted. If you are higher paid and get a 3% pay raise and the lower paid guy gets 3%, guess what, you got more cash than the other guy! This has a snowballing effect whereas over the years you are making a lot more than the other guy. I do remember only once that the Officers got a smaller raise than the Enlisted, it was because the disparity in wages was so much, that they did it. It was a catch up for Enlisted. After that, back to the same routine where each got the same % raise. Go ahead compare the pay scales.
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. [foreigners and aliens are by definition NOT "subject to their jurisdiction"]
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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Mr. Howard's quote is shown on page 41 of the above PDF. This may be what just got removed from the National Archives/LoC. [See page 15 for first significant comments from Mr. Howard].
In other words, "by natural law" if your parent is a citizen of the USA, then you inherit that citizenship, and by national law, if you are born in the USA.
Nothing was JUST removed. The original tweet is 7 YEARS OLD. And if you look at that Twitter thread. The issue was fixed. 7 YEARS AGO. it was most likely a bad weblink and some Twitter user made a mountain out of a molehill.
To the bigger point. Mr. Howard's interpretation was rejected and his exception was not added to the Constitution. And it has been rejected by Supreme Court decisions since the 1800s.
And you, handshake, are missing the point entirely (likely on purpose).
It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether it happened in 2018 and was discovered by others later and returned to its original condition, or whether it was done yesterday. In either case, the person(s) who did it committed a crime and should be fired, lose their government pension, be banned from future government employment, and be prosecuted and receive jail time. It was a crime regardless of when they did it, and whether or not someone else discovered it later and fixed it.
My comment had nothing to do with whether or not someone "deleted" history. But it seems that you don't argue with the fact that someone actually DID delete historical information from the archives and/or fuck with the titles/tags to make it harder to find that information during a search, you just think that because someone else returned it to normal later, then no history was actually deleted. You can't have it both ways. It certainly would appear that history may have been deleted, and then it was put back later by other people.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in stages over the course of two years. It was officially ratified on July 28, 1868.
Stages of ratification
June 8, 1866: The Senate passed the amendment by a two-thirds majority
June 13, 1866: The House of Representatives passed the amendment
March 2, 1867: Congress required that the legislatures of the former Confederacy ratify the amendment
July 9, 1868: South Carolina became the 28th state to ratify the amendment
July 28, 1868: Secretary of State William Henry Seward announced that the amendment had been ratified
The 14th Amendment was a significant change to the Constitution, and historians compare its ratification to the ratification of the original Constitution.
South Carolina ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 9, 1868, through a vote by its state legislature, which was required by the Reconstruction Acts as a condition for the state to regain full representation in Congress after the Civil War; this ratification made the amendment officially part of the U.S. Constitution.
Key points about South Carolina's ratification:
Reconstruction Acts:The federal government mandated that former Confederate states like South Carolina had to ratify the 14th Amendment to be readmitted to the Union fully.
State Legislature Vote:
The South Carolina state legislature voted to ratify the amendment on July 9, 1868.
Significance:
This ratification date marked the moment when the necessary number of states had approved the 14th Amendment, making it part of the Constitution.
Congress
Two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate can vote to propose an amendment.
State legislatures
Two-thirds of state legislatures can ask Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments.
How can amendments be ratified?
State legislatures: Three-fourths of state legislatures can approve the amendment.
State ratifying conventions: Three-fourths of specially-elected state ratifying conventions can approve the amendment.
Why did the Founding Fathers create this process?
The Founding Fathers believed that the Constitution should be able to change over time. They wanted to make it possible to amend the Constitution, but not so easy that it could be changed too frequently.
I don’t see anything on this link that was posted on the X post. Maybe someone has the link.
No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendments proposed by the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. HOwARD. ]
Mr. HOWARD. The firstamendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.
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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.*
This part is highlighted on the X post:
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,
Jig is UP. There will be no more Obamas or Harris'es or unnaturalized migrants from Somalia ever "serving" in the Republic gov't ever again. IN ANY CAPACITY.
Once the deportations are complete, the Democrats will never win another election nationally OR in the state where the deportations have been completed. Plus a REDO of House Seat Census allocation after deportations (or in 2031) strips "'blue states" of nearly 30 electoral votes from unlawfully counting illegals (i.e. noncitizens).
Here’s a copy. Anyone need a job, send in your resume to the Library of Congress with a copy of this. Or skip the resume part and just write “Anon” and your username written on a copy of this Congress. Globe report.
I would imagine that the Ratification Debates would be a rich source of information on issues like this. It's interesting that the Ratification Debates are ignored in favor of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers which were publicized commentaries rather than what the founders actually said and were thinking when the Constitution was written.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford that Black people, whether free or enslaved, were not citizens, but “a separate class of persons.” This decision protected the institution of slavery, which defined enslaved people as property, and supported discriminatory laws that denied equal citizenship status to free Black people.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was specifically intended to repeal the Dred Scott decision.
So, What if your ancestors came from another country after this went to affect? My thoughts: that would mean no one in my family are US citizens. I’m not sure, I think they came before 1776, but there’s some branches that came after. I completely agree you should not be a citizen just because you are born here. Maybe I’m not understanding it fully and my question isn’t necessary.
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
Were your ancestors legal migrants? None of this pertains to legal migrants. It specifically addresses the current "sneak across the border and give birth" so your baby is American - makes the anchor baby. Then the parents can't go home bc American anchor baby deserves to remain here.
That makes sense. No my ancestors are from England & Scotland. I’m assuming at least one was legal. The king of England asked him to come to NC (help get a government) before we were a country. Not to proud to have a kiss ass in my background & probably a mason.
I'm not understanding what this post is alluding to. Is someone suggesting that someone just tried deleting some historical document which agrees with Trumps interpretation of the 14th amendment? If so, how is that possible? I assume there are records from way back which people just can't go and delete.
Aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their home nations. My great grandfather had to denounce allegiance to the Kaiser stop whom he was subject to jurisdiction of when he landed at Ellis Island in 1897. He was a subject of Germany.
That is what the phrase means. Anyone not a USA citizen is not subject to jurisdiction of the USA.
One thing that was very clear from the 14ths’ authors’ discussions and intentions: SPLIT ALLEGIANCE WAS NOT A THING.
Furthermore, later naturalization laws confirmed how allegiance to the United States must be all that remains once a new citizen swears his/her allegiance to the United States.
“Dual Citizenship” — America’s founders would have laughed-off that idea.
How could you say that those who entered illegally are subject to the jurisdiction? They are outlaws, rebels to the jurisdiction. They have explicitly rejected the jurisdiction.
Apparently those are NOT the only exclusions to the amendment. At least, the man who WROTE it says so in the article where he is quoted - if you READ the entire page provided, you should get that part.
No one is saying this is the language in the amendment. We are saying that this article gives the behind the scenes thinking for the amendment, and the exclusions they considered normal and didn't require being in the "language".
Why would anyone think that someone ILLEGALLY crossing our border to have a baby is acceptable or WISE? That circumvents our LEGAL immigration laws. The baby is not under the jurisdiction of the US. They are under jurisdiction of whatever country their parents are under.
It’s not simply one man’s thinking on it — it’s the authors of the 14th Amendment themselves, in action, and they’re discussing the meanings of the words they’re utilizing, double-checking what’s common between their individual understandings of their words.
The transcript is direct testimony from THEIR own lips. Further, here are additional pertinent points and quotes gathered directly from their relevant discussion:
Notice, that link comes from The Wayback Machine, but if you tap on the links beneath Bingham’s quotes, Howard’s quotes, etc. — the links lead directly to the Congressional Archives.
Many of Anti-Americanisms’ links were lost to due to censorship and broken links, but the site’s creator had the wherewithal to archive the original site via the Wayback Machine.
In other words, at one time, those links worked and John Bingham’s words regarding the 14th were easier to find, but the Congressional Archives made it much more difficult to find these discussions and broke the links featured on Anti-Americanisms, but the creator of Anti-Americanisms saved the transcripts via The Wayback Machine.
Illegal immigrants ARE NOT under the jurisdiction of the US. They are under jurisdiction of their home country. The place they just came from, the country to whom they owe their allegiance. It is not the USA.
I think deleting documents or changing their titles to make them impossible to find would be grounds for termination and a ban from any future government employment.
And also prosecution and jail time.
No pension!
Pension for Federal Workers, really isn't anything to crow about. 1.1% of your top 3 years average, for each year worked.
So, if you worked for 15 years and were making $80k, that's 16.5% of your top 3 years, or $13,200 /year. It's nothing like it use to be, where people were looking at 80% for life. So, while it's not insignificant, it's not where may people think it is.
My son's MIL retired from the IRS with full pension. It's a considerable amount yearly - I believe she told me she made around 100k while working and bringing in on pension 60k-70k a year. That's not small potatoes.
She retired right as the fed jab mandate was set to go into effect.
God, how did she stand it!?! I've got a grandfather who worked in government most of his career, and apparently when he worked for the IRS, the power tripping there was so bad it gave him ulcers (he lasted a month before requesting/getting transferred out is my understanding)
No clue. I know by the end, she was a supervisor so basically was in charge, but before that? No idea lol
Probably has to do with being an Officer vs Enlisted. If you are higher paid and get a 3% pay raise and the lower paid guy gets 3%, guess what, you got more cash than the other guy! This has a snowballing effect whereas over the years you are making a lot more than the other guy. I do remember only once that the Officers got a smaller raise than the Enlisted, it was because the disparity in wages was so much, that they did it. It was a catch up for Enlisted. After that, back to the same routine where each got the same % raise. Go ahead compare the pay scales.
Good timing.
Treason already has penalties assigned...
PDF of "Congressional Debates of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution", 1866, 440 pgs: https://ia601508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf ; Official Congressional Record from the 39th Congress (1866)
Mr. Howard's quote is shown on page 41 of the above PDF. This may be what just got removed from the National Archives/LoC. [See page 15 for first significant comments from Mr. Howard].
Wonder what the definitions of “foreigners” and “aliens” were at the time.
First edition of Black’s Law was 1891.
Was anything used before that?
Here’s version 2. http://thelawdictionary.org/
Giles Law Dictionary might have been it
https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_a-new-law-dictionary-co_jacob-giles_1729
Has “Alien”, but not “Foreigner”
https://files.catbox.moe/a80u5m.jpeg
https://files.catbox.moe/9ny35n.jpeg
That law dictionary is hot. Too bad it’s not our jurisdiction.
Noah Webster 1828 1st Edition has much language defined as Founders were using. You can get reproductions on ebay.
Alien n. A foreigner; one born in, or belonging to, another country; one who is not a denizen, or entitled to the privileges of a citizen.
In other words, "by natural law" if your parent is a citizen of the USA, then you inherit that citizenship, and by national law, if you are born in the USA.
Natural Born Citizen Explained!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9PxdDvgQks
best explanation of this issue I have seen
Nothing was JUST removed. The original tweet is 7 YEARS OLD. And if you look at that Twitter thread. The issue was fixed. 7 YEARS AGO. it was most likely a bad weblink and some Twitter user made a mountain out of a molehill.
All of the records of these early Congresses were moved to a different website. See the note here https://www.loc.gov/collections/century-of-lawmaking/articles-and-essays/debates-of-congress/congressional-globe/
No history was deleted.
To the bigger point. Mr. Howard's interpretation was rejected and his exception was not added to the Constitution. And it has been rejected by Supreme Court decisions since the 1800s.
And you, handshake, are missing the point entirely (likely on purpose).
It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether it happened in 2018 and was discovered by others later and returned to its original condition, or whether it was done yesterday. In either case, the person(s) who did it committed a crime and should be fired, lose their government pension, be banned from future government employment, and be prosecuted and receive jail time. It was a crime regardless of when they did it, and whether or not someone else discovered it later and fixed it.
My comment had nothing to do with whether or not someone "deleted" history. But it seems that you don't argue with the fact that someone actually DID delete historical information from the archives and/or fuck with the titles/tags to make it harder to find that information during a search, you just think that because someone else returned it to normal later, then no history was actually deleted. You can't have it both ways. It certainly would appear that history may have been deleted, and then it was put back later by other people.
Sadly we don’t know how much they have deleted or changed. They have had their had their hands in the cookie jar too damned long.
Uh, how 'bout criminal and civil prosecution and heavy fines?
But like FOR REAL THOUGH; not just threats!
Very🌽
Should be
Must be that clerk who does the FOIA stuff and advises people how to get around things.😀😀😀 (was on a video clip on that while ago).
Or, maybe our gov’t is full of Winston Smith’s from 1984.
Nice! This is the first I saw it and thought, SHARE AND SAVE!!! lol
Say hello to Marge Moore, "The FOIA Lady." ~ A Name That Went By Quick at the Fauci Testimony.
https://greatawakening.win/p/17tKsDkaAQ/marge-moore-the-foia-lady--a-nam/
Nice.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/image/14thAmendment.htm
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in stages over the course of two years. It was officially ratified on July 28, 1868. Stages of ratification
June 8, 1866: The Senate passed the amendment by a two-thirds majority
June 13, 1866: The House of Representatives passed the amendment
March 2, 1867: Congress required that the legislatures of the former Confederacy ratify the amendment
July 9, 1868: South Carolina became the 28th state to ratify the amendment
July 28, 1868: Secretary of State William Henry Seward announced that the amendment had been ratified
The 14th Amendment was a significant change to the Constitution, and historians compare its ratification to the ratification of the original Constitution.
South Carolina ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 9, 1868, through a vote by its state legislature, which was required by the Reconstruction Acts as a condition for the state to regain full representation in Congress after the Civil War; this ratification made the amendment officially part of the U.S. Constitution. Key points about South Carolina's ratification:
Reconstruction Acts: The federal government mandated that former Confederate states like South Carolina had to ratify the 14th Amendment to be readmitted to the Union fully.
State Legislature Vote: The South Carolina state legislature voted to ratify the amendment on July 9, 1868.
Significance: This ratification date marked the moment when the necessary number of states had approved the 14th Amendment, making it part of the Constitution.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.6-4/ALDE_00000388/
How can Constitutional amendments be proposed?
Congress Two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate can vote to propose an amendment.
State legislatures Two-thirds of state legislatures can ask Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments.
How can amendments be ratified? State legislatures: Three-fourths of state legislatures can approve the amendment. State ratifying conventions: Three-fourths of specially-elected state ratifying conventions can approve the amendment.
Why did the Founding Fathers create this process? The Founding Fathers believed that the Constitution should be able to change over time. They wanted to make it possible to amend the Constitution, but not so easy that it could be changed too frequently.
I can't read it, does it say what the X post says?
I don’t see anything on this link that was posted on the X post. Maybe someone has the link.
This part is highlighted on the X post:
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,
See page 41. PDF of "Congressional Debates of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution", 1866, 440 pgs: https://ia601508.us.archive.org/26/items/DebatesThatLedToTheCreationOfTheFourteenthAmendment/Debates%20that%20led%20to%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.pdf ; Official Congressional Record from the 39th Congress (1866)
Thanks
https://x.com/pepesgrandma/status/1057518434060324865
Does this help?
Thanks
Did that link help?
My apologies but I cannot read it either. I can barely read your comment.
u/#pepedetective
See my comment below
Kek
u/#kek
Speaker of the house and leader of the senate need to look into this now. Heads need to roll. Original documents should be on the shelves.
Exactly
So if your parents are foreigners GTFO!
Omg this. 💯
No. If ONE of your parents is a foreigner GTFO!
Jig is UP. There will be no more Obamas or Harris'es or unnaturalized migrants from Somalia ever "serving" in the Republic gov't ever again. IN ANY CAPACITY.
Once the deportations are complete, the Democrats will never win another election nationally OR in the state where the deportations have been completed. Plus a REDO of House Seat Census allocation after deportations (or in 2031) strips "'blue states" of nearly 30 electoral votes from unlawfully counting illegals (i.e. noncitizens).
Y E S !!! 🥰
desideratum - something that is needed or wanted
jurisprudence - philosophy of law
“Of course” lol
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30867/m1/12/
Here’s a copy. Anyone need a job, send in your resume to the Library of Congress with a copy of this. Or skip the resume part and just write “Anon” and your username written on a copy of this Congress. Globe report.
Sure looks like illegals ARE NOT covered by the 14th amendment, per the man who wrote it.
https://x.com/pepesgrandma/status/1057518434060324865
Bad Kitty is now saying it's back up on the Library of Congress website
I’m sure it was all just a big coinky dink 🌈
Absolutely!
I would think N-S-A has a copy of this?
One would HOPE so
Amen
To jail!
https://postimg.cc/mh1jjfvX
A little better pic of the page.
Thank you!
I would imagine that the Ratification Debates would be a rich source of information on issues like this. It's interesting that the Ratification Debates are ignored in favor of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers which were publicized commentaries rather than what the founders actually said and were thinking when the Constitution was written.
Agree
Nothing is ever deleted!
The coverup of the crime is the most damning.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford that Black people, whether free or enslaved, were not citizens, but “a separate class of persons.” This decision protected the institution of slavery, which defined enslaved people as property, and supported discriminatory laws that denied equal citizenship status to free Black people.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was specifically intended to repeal the Dred Scott decision.
People forget history. Luckily, I'm old enough to have benefitted from a good foundation in civics and US History.
So, What if your ancestors came from another country after this went to affect? My thoughts: that would mean no one in my family are US citizens. I’m not sure, I think they came before 1776, but there’s some branches that came after. I completely agree you should not be a citizen just because you are born here. Maybe I’m not understanding it fully and my question isn’t necessary.
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
Link with section highlighted only and all text visible
Were your ancestors legal migrants? None of this pertains to legal migrants. It specifically addresses the current "sneak across the border and give birth" so your baby is American - makes the anchor baby. Then the parents can't go home bc American anchor baby deserves to remain here.
That makes sense. No my ancestors are from England & Scotland. I’m assuming at least one was legal. The king of England asked him to come to NC (help get a government) before we were a country. Not to proud to have a kiss ass in my background & probably a mason.
Who has the original?!!!
I'm not understanding what this post is alluding to. Is someone suggesting that someone just tried deleting some historical document which agrees with Trumps interpretation of the 14th amendment? If so, how is that possible? I assume there are records from way back which people just can't go and delete.
Bad Kitty, who is the OP on X, had said the library of Congress - no individual names given - had deleted it, but now it's back
Aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their home nations. My great grandfather had to denounce allegiance to the Kaiser stop whom he was subject to jurisdiction of when he landed at Ellis Island in 1897. He was a subject of Germany.
That is what the phrase means. Anyone not a USA citizen is not subject to jurisdiction of the USA.
Simple as that. Foreign spawn are not citizens.
Exactly…
One thing that was very clear from the 14ths’ authors’ discussions and intentions: SPLIT ALLEGIANCE WAS NOT A THING.
Furthermore, later naturalization laws confirmed how allegiance to the United States must be all that remains once a new citizen swears his/her allegiance to the United States.
“Dual Citizenship” — America’s founders would have laughed-off that idea.
Calirado gov poleass (who said TdA was a fantasy) is a dual citizen with…guess…
He’s also gay and he and his partner bought a kid.
How could you say that those who entered illegally are subject to the jurisdiction? They are outlaws, rebels to the jurisdiction. They have explicitly rejected the jurisdiction.
Apparently those are NOT the only exclusions to the amendment. At least, the man who WROTE it says so in the article where he is quoted - if you READ the entire page provided, you should get that part.
No one is saying this is the language in the amendment. We are saying that this article gives the behind the scenes thinking for the amendment, and the exclusions they considered normal and didn't require being in the "language".
Why would anyone think that someone ILLEGALLY crossing our border to have a baby is acceptable or WISE? That circumvents our LEGAL immigration laws. The baby is not under the jurisdiction of the US. They are under jurisdiction of whatever country their parents are under.
It’s not simply one man’s thinking on it — it’s the authors of the 14th Amendment themselves, in action, and they’re discussing the meanings of the words they’re utilizing, double-checking what’s common between their individual understandings of their words.
The transcript is direct testimony from THEIR own lips. Further, here are additional pertinent points and quotes gathered directly from their relevant discussion:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160625050440/http://anti-americanisms.neocities.org/A-A-CRH-1-Ted_Cruz_Subverts_14th_Amendment.html
Notice, that link comes from The Wayback Machine, but if you tap on the links beneath Bingham’s quotes, Howard’s quotes, etc. — the links lead directly to the Congressional Archives.
Many of Anti-Americanisms’ links were lost to due to censorship and broken links, but the site’s creator had the wherewithal to archive the original site via the Wayback Machine.
In other words, at one time, those links worked and John Bingham’s words regarding the 14th were easier to find, but the Congressional Archives made it much more difficult to find these discussions and broke the links featured on Anti-Americanisms, but the creator of Anti-Americanisms saved the transcripts via The Wayback Machine.
That's awesome info!!! Thanks
Illegal immigrants ARE NOT under the jurisdiction of the US. They are under jurisdiction of their home country. The place they just came from, the country to whom they owe their allegiance. It is not the USA.
Yeah, the one man that wrote it.
The newspaper article shows the INTENTION behind the 14th amendment, by the man who wrote it. Illegals WERE NOT included.
What is the definition of United States?