1. NATURAL BORN = at birth allegiance to a nation-state regime — WHEREVER the child is born — based on the nation-state allegiance of the parents — or possibly just the FATHER (due to DARK AGE feudal stuff).

2. I hope that we don’t have to create more laws just because candidates are breaking the law of the founding fathers. Can’t people understand the basic fundamental laws and rules of the republic? So if they are not a “natural-born” person and mother or grandmother say they “know” their son was born in Kenya then get the local militia (not government) to oust the devil from government service, period! Someone has taken education away from the masses. Those who subvert and covertly operate under the guise of truth will have to face the people openly and step out of their pretentious behavior. People need to stop being dumbed-down. Let’s make the Constitution and Bill of Rights a personal and individual subject of study (reading and writing)commitment to avoid treading them under foot.
   I am for the legislation if it corrects the problems of educating the masses. I did not vote for Obama nor McCain. I voted for Chuck Baldwin because he is endorsed by Ron Paul (both of these men are natural-born persons in our American republic).

3. Gee, I wonder how Barry will get around this in 2012?

4. Are we certain that the Constitution requires presidents to have lived in the United States for the preceding 14 years?

   It appears from the text that the fourteen years of residency do not have to immediately precede his or her candidacy or presidency:

   “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

5. Expect this from a number of red states. Obama will have to “put up or shut up” next time.

6. This is good news. John Sidney McCain III is not a United States Citizen, because he was born out of wedlock in the Colon Hospital, City of Colon, Republic of Panama at 6:25 pm on 29 August 1936.
   Roberta McCain n’ee Wright did nomarry “Jack” McCain
   in TJ or any other place in Baja California and Roberta Wright was never employed by United States
   Government.see United States Code title 8 section 5e. Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg

7. Thank you, Randall Hayes. I corrected the post.

8. Thank God! The Usurper-in-Chief is now doomed in his re-election bid!

9. Hey Fraudster! The Usurper-in-Chief is back on the ranch in Texas and good riddance! Now we’ve got someone with some brains on the job. His re-election will depend on how he leaqs the country through these difficult times, not on what a few Repukes in AZ who have had their brains baked by the desert heat do.

10. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment stats that U.S. citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” federal law uses almost identical

    language. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is an essential part of the definition. History clearly confirms the importance of and necessity of those five words, American Indians, despite the obvious location of their birth, did not receive U.S. citizenship until it was conferred by congressional acts in 1887, 1901, and 1924, long after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The extensive litigation concerning American Indians proves that the consent of both the government and the individual is what controls citizenship, rather than place of birth.

    A baby born to the wife of the ambassador from France, for example, will surely be a French citizen, not an American citizen. Dating back to the Roman Empire, citizenship has always been privilege extended only on conditions established by the sovereign (as it was granted to St. Paul), not the mere happenstance of location of birth or residence.

    For nearly two centuries, the Supreme Court faithfully construed citizenship consistent with the Constitution and the intent of our Founders. In 1884, in Elk v. Wilkins, the Court held that:

    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, member of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdictional thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the children of subjects of any government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers o foreign nations.

    In 1942, in In re Thenault, a federal court in the District of Columbia re-confirmed the conditions of citizenship: “Of course, the mere physical fact of birth in the country does not make these children citizens of the United States, inasmuch as they were at the that time children of a duly accredited diplomatic representative of a foreign state. This is fundamental law and within the recognized exception not only to the Constitutional provision relative to citizenship, Amendment Article 14, Section I, but to the law of England and France and to our own law, from the very first settlement of the Colonies.”

    The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
    By P.A. Madison
    Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
    February 1, 2005

    We well know how the courts and laws have spoken on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the constitutions citizenship clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

    We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside.” This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does it mean? Does it mean anyone born in the United States is automatically an American citizen? Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

    Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

    The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all “persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

    It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

    [T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    Trumbull continues, “Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn’t make treaties with them…It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

    Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

    Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

    In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the “extent and quality” of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

    [Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

    No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

    In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

    Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

    [I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

    Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the “Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America,” an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

    I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…

    Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration of taking the American Citizenship Oath. James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

    When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]

    What does it all mean?

    In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American jurisdiction. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship–not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

    The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

    Footnotes
    [1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
    [2]. Id. at 2893
    [3]. Id. at 2895
    [4]. Id. at 2893
    [5]. Id. at 2897
    [6]. Id. at 1291
    [7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.

    ANOTHER ARTICLE ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL BIRTHS TO ILLEGALS.

    FYI — Mark Krikorian]

    BIRTHS TO IMMIGRANTS AT ALL-TIME HIGH
    Nearly 1/4 of New Mothers Are Foreign-Born, 1 in 10 an Illegal Alien

    WASHINGTON (July 7, 2005) — A new analysis of birth records by the Center for Immigration Studies shows that in 2002 almost one in four births in the United States was to an immigrant mother (legal or illegal), the highest level in American history. In addition, nearly ten percent of all births in the country were to illegal-alien mothers. This is important for at least two reasons: first, it is currently U.S. government policy to award American citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil, even the children of tourists and illegal aliens. In addition, the number and share of children born to immigrants is now so large that it may overwhelm the assimilation process.

    The new report, “Births to Immigrants in America, 1970-2002,” by the Center’s Director of Research, Steven A. Camarota, is on line at http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back805.html.

    Among the findings:

    * In 2002, 23 percent of all births in the United States were to immigrant mothers (legal or illegal), compared to 15 percent in 1990, 9 percent in 1980 and 6 percent in 1970.

    * Even at the peak of the last great wave of immigration in 1910, the share of births to immigrant mothers did not reach the level of today. And after 1910 immigration was reduced, whereas current immigration continues at record levels, thus births to immigrants will continue to increase.

    * Our best estimate is that 383,000, or 42 percent, of births to immigrants are to illegal alien mothers. Thus births to illegals now account for nearly 1 out of every 10 births in the United States.

    * The large number of births to illegals shows that the longer illegal immigration is allowed to persist the harder it is to solve, because these U.S. citizen children can stay permanently, their citizenship can prevent a parent’s deportation, and once adults, they can sponsor their parents for permanent residence.

    * The issue of births to illegals also shows that a “temporary” worker program would inevitably result in the permanent addition of hundreds of thousands of people to the U.S. population each year, exactly what such a program is supposed to avoid.

    * The dramatic growth in births to immigrants has been accompanied by a significant decline in diversity. The top country for immigrant births C Mexico C increased from 24 percent of births to immigrants in 1970 to 45 percent in 2002.

    “Research shows that one of the biggest challenges immigrant-receiving countries face is the assimilation of the children of immigrants, who will have much higher expectations than their parents,” said Camarota. “With immigrants accounting for such a large, and growing, share of births, America is headed into uncharted territory. We simply don’t know how these children will assimilate — but it is clear that the stakes for America are enormous.”

    Among the new report’s other findings:

    * In 2002, births to Hispanic immigrants accounted for 59 percent of all births to immigrant mothers. No single cultural/linguistic group has ever accounted for such a large share of births to immigrants.

    * Immigrant mothers are much less educated than native mothers. In 2002, 39 percent lacked a high school degree, compared to 17 percent of native-born mothers. And immigrants now account for 41 percent of all births to mothers without a high school degree.

    * The states with the most dramatic increase in births to immigrants in the last decade are Georgia, North Carolina, Nevada, Nebraska, Arkansas, Arizona, Tennessee, Minnesota, Colorado, Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland.

    * Immigrants account for such a large percentage of births because they have somewhat higher fertility and are more likely to be in their reproductive years than natives. Nevertheless, the differences with natives are not large enough to significantly affect the nation’s overall age structure.

    * Immigrants who have arrived over the past two decades, plus all of their U.S.-born children, have only reduced the average age in the United States from 37 to 36 years.

    * Looking at the working-age (15 to 64) share of the population also shows little effect from immigration. With or without post-1980 immigrants and all their U.S.-born children, 66 percent of the population is of working age.

    * While immigration has little effect on the nation’s age structure, each year new immigration (legal and illegal), plus births to immigrants, adds at some 2.4 million people to America’s population, making for a much larger population and a more densely settled country.

    For further information about “Births to Immigrants in America 1970-2002,” contact the author, Steven Camarota, at (202) 466-8185 or sac@cis.org.

    # # #

    The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research institute which examines the impact of immigration on the United States.

11. Hey Russell old buddy, what do you think of introducing legislation that makes abortion of all “anchor babies”
    mandatory? Does that sound like a good idea to you?

12. Don’t give him any ideas, Zelph. He’s just loony enough to go for it.

13. What about premies! What about C-sections! How natural do you have to be? Suppose the mother got a pain killer during labor – what then? I think we should seek out and destroy all these un-naturals right now! Remove the un-naturals from society and we won’t need no stinking legislation! And put Zelph in that pool too, unless he brings back the WEEKLY drinking liberaly! What happened to “change”?

14. That was great, bookmarked! Louis vuitton Replica Handbags

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.