for months, and the wording was very, very carefully worked out. if they had montana to include any kind of people, aliens, children of aliens, they would have done so. it was mainly to establish the citizenship of african-americans. it was to set a standard of citizenship for everybody, not just black people. irish immigrants. it was debated about the chinese on the west coast. everybody understood this meant all persons born in the united states with a couple of exceptions. it didn t apply to native americans, because they were members of their own little nations, their tribes, and it didn t apply to like children of diplomats born in the embassy or something like that. the idea that this was not meant to apply to aliens, children of aliens illegally there was no such thing as illegal aliens then, there were no laws preventing people from entering
citizenship. right, but that came much later, you have the wong kim decision that dealt with that. the courts are pretty clear on that. and then you have the chase in 1942 why do you want to change the why do you want to abuse it? it was never intended wait a minute, if it s wrong, it s unconstitutional. you ask me why i want to change it, let me tell you why. the 14th amendment is constitutional, it can t be unconstitutional, it is the constitution, senator. that s a great spin. paul, let me let paul go ahead and then we ll let you respond, paul? okay. part of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. well, illogic. that s fine. if it only applies to african-americans, which is clearly wrong, you don t need to change it. he wants it, and some others, senator kyl, senator from arizona has picked this up, senator lindsey graham of south
before the civil war, no black person could be a citizen. it was to set a standard of citizenship for everybody, not just black people. children of immigrants, irish immigrantses. as you said before, it was debated about the km e ed aboute west coast. everybody understood this meant all persons born in the united states with a couple of exceptions. it didn t apply to native americans, because they were members of their own little nations, their tribes, and it didn t apply to like children of diplomats born in the embassy or something like that. the idea that this was not meant to apply to aliens, children of aliens illegally there was no such thing as illegal aliens then, there were no laws preventing people from entering the united states. technically they re correct, when someone says, the framers never had illegal aliens in mind, because at the time there weren t illegal aliens. there were no immigration laws. they did have immigrants in mind and the children of immigrants. th
the congressional research says let me finish. in 2005, the congressional research service did a report, and they point out that the original debate over the 14th amendment while overwhelmingly about african-americans, was also among both proponents and opponents, about chinese immigrants here and whether the children of foreign workers of chinese workers should actually get citizenship. no, hang on. let s go back to the case, that s not true. it was clear on the debate on the floor, jacob howards and senator cowan made it clear that did not apply to aliens or foreigners in any matter. that was the debate on the floor. then let s take the 1884 u.s. versus wilkins case, it didn t apply to them, it didn t even apply to american indians. because they belong to a tribe, have alienage they were born on a sovereign nation, there s no doubt where they were born. congress had to pass three acts
immigrants. the supreme court later rules it applied to the children of chinese, japanese. later on, chinese were excluded from coming into this country. japanese were, but those here who had children still, their children were recognized as citizens, among the japanese, the nissei and essei, they could never become citizens, but it was universally accepted that their children were citizens. when people argue this was only based on african-american, that s not true? that s completely false. they were trying to set up after the civil war a new standard of citizenship for the united states. not just as it was before the war, where each state kind of declared who was going to be a citizen, the civil war created a sense of a nation, it was a unified nation. was it highly politicized back then? some are arguing, you re demagoguing against chinese immigrants because of politics? absolutely, absolutely. the majority the republican majority wanted to get race out