Duce630
(DustinK - Damn it feels good to be a Cougar. -Dwight Davis)
61
This link is getting overhwelmed a lot but here’s some actual facts, you can read the debate.
The fact is, this was something debated and discussed at the time. The fact is, this amendment was written the way it is being applied and has been applied.
Generated using Google AI. The sources are clickable.
Evidence of the framers’ intent for universal scope is preserved in the official legislative transcripts of the 39th Congress (1866), compiled in the Congressional Globe. [1]
The exact debates, speeches, and text changes reveal their intent through specific historical records.
The Congressional Globe (1866)
The Congressional Globe is the primary public transcript of the floor debates. You can access digitized versions of these records through the Library of Congress Congressional Globe Collection. Key transcripts include:
John Bingham’s Speeches (Feb & March 1866): Representative John Bingham, the author of Section 1, repeatedly argued that constitutional protections must cover all people. In his famous “One Country, One Constitution, One People” speech, he explicitly stated that the amendment was meant to protect the “natural rights” that inhere in every human being—not just citizens or a specific race. [1, 2, 3]
The Shift from “Citizens” to “Persons” (May 1866): Early drafts by other committee members, like Thaddeus Stevens, only protected “citizens”. Bingham fought to change the wording to “any person” for the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The Globe records show this choice was made precisely so states could not deny basic human rights to non-citizens, such as foreign immigrants. [1, 2, 3]
The Birthright Citizenship Debates (May 30, 1866)
The debate over the Citizenship Clause provides the most explicit proof that the framers knew—and intended—the amendment to apply universally.
Senator Jacob Howard’s Introduction: When introducing the final version of the amendment to the Senate, Howard explicitly noted that the citizenship clause was a blanket rule with only narrow, traditional exceptions (like children of foreign diplomats or invading armies). [1, 2, 3]
The Cowan-Conness Debate: Senator Edgar Cowan objected to the amendment because it was universal, specifically asking if it would make children of Chinese and Romani immigrants citizens. Senator John Conness of California directly responded on the Senate floor, confirming that yes, it was intended to apply to those children, stating that they were entirely comfortable with that universal outcome. [1, 2]
Online Databases and Curated Archives
If you want to read these transcripts without digging through raw 19th-century logs, several legal archives organize the text by clause:
The National Constitution Center: Their Interactive Constitution Drafting Table maps out every early draft of the 14th Amendment side-by-side with the floor speeches to show how the text became more universal over time.
The Reconstruction Amendments Official Documents: The National Archives Milestone Documents page provides the contextual history of how Bingham and Howard nationalized these rights. [1]
Duce630
(DustinK - Damn it feels good to be a Cougar. -Dwight Davis)
63
The 14th amendment and borders are two completely different functions. 14th amendment applies to citizenship as in who is a member of the nation, whereas borders are a function of sovereignty which is the right to control a territory. Even with birthright citizenship, borders are necessary to regulate national security, trade, and immigration (like how we can and do turn away pregnant women at the border, and how we don’t let just anyone immigrate here).
This is how it has been working for over 150 years.
1 Like
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
64
What was the intent of the 14th amendment?
We have no choice but to end birthright tourism.
Duce630
(DustinK - Damn it feels good to be a Cougar. -Dwight Davis)
65
In CA, there are actually places where, if you come over as a tourist from China pregnant, you can stay there and give birth, and then fly back. Your baby will have dual citizenship as a result.
Truthfully, I don’t know a real way to stop that.
That said, stats I’ve seen show that only about 0.3% of all new births in America are of that sort.
Duce630
(DustinK - Damn it feels good to be a Cougar. -Dwight Davis)
70
Yea, I have read it is pretty rare and/or not widely tracked. Of course, the border patrol can already deny them entry if they believe that is the reason for travel. There are also varying airline policies on air travel for someone who is 28+ weeks pregnant, and even more restrictive at 36 weeks, that could prevent them from flying.
I know ICE also does crackdowns on people promoting birthright tourism or using fraud to facilitate it.
I have no problem with enforcing those laws and regulations.
Duce630
(DustinK - Damn it feels good to be a Cougar. -Dwight Davis)
73
Agreed.
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
74
Here is another post for and the direct connection between the…13th and 14th amendment. The 14th exists because of the 13th.
History
This so-called Reconstruction Amendment was a reaction to the Dred Scott decision (1857), in which the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States; the Fourteenth Amendment created the principle of birthright citizenship so as to render that ruling invalid. The amendment also prohibited the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and from denying anyone within a state’s jurisdiction equal protection under the law. Nullified by the Thirteenth Amendment, the section of the Constitution apportioning representation in the House of Representatives based on a formula that counted each enslaved person as three-fifths of a person was replaced by a clause in the Fourteenth Amendment specifying that representatives be “apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.” The amendment also prohibited former civil and military officeholders who had supported the Confederacy from again holding any state or federal office—with the proviso that this prohibition could be removed from individuals by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress. Moreover, the amendment upheld the national debt while exempting the federal government and state governments from any responsibility for the debts incurred by the rebellious Confederate States of America. Finally, the last section, mirroring the approach of the Thirteenth Amendment, provided for enforcement.
Among those legislators responsible for introducing the amendment’s provisions were Rep. John A. Bingham of Ohio, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, Rep. Henry Deming of Connecticut, Sen. Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri, and Rep. Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. The Congressional Joint Resolution proposing the amendment was submitted to the states for ratification on June 16, 1866. On July 28, 1868, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, it entered into force. However, its attempt to guarantee civil rights was circumvented for many decades by the post-Reconstruction-era Black codes, Jim Crow laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s “separate but equal” ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a case that was the first major inquiry into the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal-protection clause.
Make sure you click on the red highlighted weblinks. This will help you/everyone understands the true origin and meaning of the 14th amendment.
Precedents have been over turned before, especially due to social pressure and shifting judicial philosophy.
Original-ism and primary intent should be the main factors when deciding the affect on which a piece of legislation should deem constitutionality, and where it can be applied. Just like President vs Slaughter (2026) overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Overturning old precedents is in itself a precedent shown by USSC.
IMO one of the main holes in the extension of birthright citizenship from Wong Kim Ark is that his parents were legal permanent citizens, not illegal migrants or visa holders. While the 2026 ruling does extend that birthright ruling by a very slim 5-4 margin, I do expect either via congressional legislation or another USSC ruling to overturn the old precedence set by the extended interpretation of Wong Kim Ark.
92010Coogs
(I took a lie detector test...No I did not)
78
Prior to the 13th amendment this was never a law. It started to be discussed with the 13th amendment. The 14th amendment was created as a natural evolution and thank god for it. What was happening then is 100% different than what we have now. Hence the divided ruling. Furthermore and why this was about slaves’ rights.
Have you ever heard of the 15th amendment?
Existence of the 15th Amendment
Yes, the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution exists.
Key Details
Ratification Date: February 3, 1870
Purpose: It prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Text of the Amendment
The 15th Amendment states:
Section 1: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
Section 2: “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
This amendment was a significant step in the Reconstruction Era, aimed at ensuring voting rights for African American men following the Civil War.
The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are 100% intertwined. One does not exist without the others.
In 1865, Congress passed what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guaranteeing citizenship without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. The bill also guaranteed equal benefits and access to the law, a direct assault on the Black Codes passed by many post-war Southern states.
Again, if they wanted it to apply only to slaves, they could have written as such. They didn’t.
Duce630
(DustinK - Damn it feels good to be a Cougar. -Dwight Davis)
80
So what? Prior to various events stuff was never a law.
Are you serious? The 15th Amendment exists?! We didn’t just skip that number?
Not entirely true, any one of them could have potentially passed on their own. None of them were particularly dependent on each other to get passed.
Either way, you’re still missing that the text of the 14th Amendment is plain and says what it says, the way the 14th Amendment applys to children of non citizens born here was absolutely debated by Congress at the time with at least some Congress people approving and even stating the intent was to provide birthright citizenship as we have come to know it, plus the hundred fifty plus years of precedent in the courts.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 certainly preceeded the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments and laid the groundwork for those amendments. However, that changes nothing with the language of the 14th amendment as adopted.
