> Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
Thus, even without the 14th Amendment at least some of those 250,000 to 400,000 children born each year in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants - the white ones - would still be US citizens, barring a law otherwise. And there has been no law otherwise, because of the 14th.
If you want to say the loophole is that non-white US-born children of foreign citizens mistakenly got a right that was only meant to apply to former slaves, then go ahead and say that.
But we can read the discussion in Congress at the time and see they were well aware that it applied to more than ex-slaves. From https://web.archive.org/web/20210114215253/https://memory.lo... and the following page we see Mr. Cowan ask for clarification about the text, as it applies to foreigners:
> Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they? ... is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race? Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese? I should think not.
> 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.
Oh man, he goes on to point out how all the recent talk about Gypsies, when they are so few in number, cannot be but to cause political agitation, then referring to actions of "our "southern brethren", who I will not say invaded California" were there as "road agents" (but actually highway robbers), and California hanged them as California did not recognize the commission of Jefferson Davis within their borders.
In any case, the evidence is quite clear that this "loophole" was fully discussed and understood as a goal of the amendment.
That is why Mr. Conness, an abolitionist and advocate for Chinese immigration, advocated for its passage.
Nope. This "loophole" nonsense is naught but political agitation.
So you’re arguing that birthright citizenship isn’t a loophole because lawmakers in the 1800s discussed it? Great, but we’re in 2025, not 1868. A lot of U.S. citizens today don’t agree with handing out citizenship to 250,000–400,000 kids of undocumented immigrants every year, and pretending this debate was settled forever ignores reality. The Constitution is a living document, not a museum piece. If you’re looking for “agitation,” maybe start with the side clinging to 19th-century logic to justify modern mass migration.
VOIPThrowaway's comment was all about the intent behind the amendment. Part of the intent may have been to "make sure Democrats couldn't say that former slaves weren't citizens" but the legislative history clearly shows that wasn't the only reason.
How else would you demonstrate what their intent was, if citing primary evidence is off-limits?
I'm arguing it's not a loophole because that's how US law works, and has worked for not just the last 250 years, but in the common law that we inherited from England. I provided citation to show that legal history, so you can double-check me.
If you don't like the way the law works, well, use the 18th-century logic embedded in the Constitution to repeal the amendment, like how the 21st repealed the 18th. Make new state and federal laws to invalidate the relevant common law, which would still exist after the repeal.
Don't just make up interpretations because you don't like reality.
Sounds like a few hundred thousand children of undocumented immigrants becoming US Citizens every year is perfectly okay with you. Reality would say though that it has become an extreme loophole that current non-citizens are using to get their children into America as US Citizens. Times have changed!
> Statistics show that a significant, and rising, number of undocumented immigrants are having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents is their goal.[29] According to PolitiFact, the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years ...
> Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status; as such, according to PolitFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship for the parents is "an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process."
So I imagine you think these people are all coming to the US to have babies, then, what, leaving them here? As orphans? Can you point to the orphan numbers?
Or going home to raise the kid so that 18 years later the now-adult kid will move to the US - a country that's mostly foreign to them, with little support network?
Where are your numbers that this is an actual problem?
How does it compare to the devastating failures of the US health care system and parasite that is the insurance industry?
How does it compare the destruction of the social safety network caused by decades of tax cuts for the wealthy?
You failed in the past election and Trump became president because millions of people disagree with your narrative, no matter how long of a report on hacker news that you write!