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.
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.