1 - 5
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 11:28 PM
Yes, I have. But the debates and the meaning of the phrase "subject,,," are two separate issues. And it's the phrase that made it into the law.
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 11:25 PM
Nope. They were referring to ethnic background. The meaning of the phrase "Subject to..etc" is referring to not owing any foreign allegiance. It has nothing to do with being subject to laws. YOu can accept that or not. The research material on the actual meaning as related to 1868 is widely available on the internet.
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 10:28 PM
Read the FULL Senatorial transcript of the debate on the 14th from the 1860s, they talk about things like the children of Chinese immigrants , gypsies and Ethiopian immigrants getting citizenship. I believe they were referring to ETHNIC background, not ALLEGIANCE. Back then, just about everyone was a race, the Italian race, the Irish race, the Anglo-Saxon race, etc. etc.....
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 10:17 PM
I should've written.... It would be best to use a dictionary of legal terms from the time period.....
In response to:

Did I Move?

Parker10 Wrote: Feb 12, 2014 10:16 PM
It would be best to use a dictionary from the time period that covered the years in which the amendment was written. "Subject to the jursidiction thereof" refers to owing no foreign allegiance. It has nothing to do with whether or not someone in the country is compelled to follow the law. Think about it along these lines- if everyone born in the country has citizenship at birth, why include the "subject" phrase at all? It makes no sense along those lines.
1 - 5