1/x In the next few weeks you're going to hear lots of nonsense that there's a phrase in the 14th amdt that proves birthright citizenship was never meant to apply to children of non citizens. The phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" highlighted in the screenshot below 
2/x Indeed the president tweeted about the phrase this morning. It's important to understand how and why the argument is wrong. Basically what folks are arguing is that if you're not a citizen you're not subject to US jurisdiction. Here's why that's wrong.
3/x When the 14th was introduced in the House in May 1866, it did not include the language that wold ultimately become the birthright citizenship clause. That clause was first introduced in the Senate on May 30, 1866 by Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan.
4/x Senator Howard, who, as I noted, is the author of the birthright citizenship clause, explained exactly what he meant by the language:
5/x The key phrase in the quote is highlighted in yellow. The debates show that when Howard used the word "aliens" as not being subject to U.S. jurisdiction, he was using it as a synonym for a category of diplomatic foreigners who are on US soil representing their country.
6/x To Howard, these "aliens" were not subject to US jurisdiction because, like members of Indian Tribes, who were part of sovereign nations, these "aliens: could not be sued in civil court, nor prosecuted in criminal court. Here's how he puts it:
7/x This is so clear that the only way to make it say seem like Howard intended to exclude children non-citizens from birthright citizenship is to falsify Howard's explanation of the language. This is exactly what Michael Anton did this past summer in his Washington Post op-ed.
8/x Here's the way Anton describes Howard's statement.
9/x Here's again Howard's actual language:
10/x Notice that Anton inserts the word "or" between the word "aliens" and the phrase "who belongs." That word does not appear in Howard's statement and substantively changes its meaning. @mjs_DC wrote a great piece about it in slate: slate.com/news-and-polit…
11/11 Bottom line, the whole birthright citizenship "debate" is not an honest constitutional one tone but is political demagoguery in its worst form.
