14th Amendment Issues
Several years ago now, on the website Fight The Smears there existed a statement-“The truth about Barack’s birth certificate” and it said this ” Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21, 1959. Obama became a CITIZEN AT BIRTH UNDER THE FIRST SECTION OF THE 14th AMENDMENT.”
Emphasis mine. Now for all the talk about disengenous court cases, Obama himself has NEVER called himself a natural born citizen and his propaganda website called him a 14th amendment citizen. Later this same website CHANGED the above statement to say “native born”.
There are apparently many permutations to the ever changing story of Obama.
I have the printed copy captured from the WayBackMachine right here, next to me. It may be now scrubbed, who knows, but I have it. February 9, 2012 11:21 AM
” Perhaps the court will re-visit the issue again one day and someone can argue why temporary
visitors should be treated differently from residents, however, until that
happens the rationale from WKA will be followed by the courts.”
The rationale from WKA does not include any indication that temporary foreign visitors who deliver a child on U.S. soil have magically produced an American citizen because of our magic American soil. There’s a principle involved and if its conditions aren’t met then the child is not a legitimate U.S. citizen. That’s not to say it’s not a legal citizen because that is entirely up to the INS, regardless of the law, as was the case in WKA until the SCOTUS overturned the policy of the federal government. AN
“Simply a historical fact that children of temporary visitors were natural born
subjects under English law”
That fact is abominable to American principles because it’s based on the illegitimate philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings to be lord and master of all born on the Kings land.
“and during the 14th Amendment debates the issue of children of temporary visitors was raised once and the answer was that such children were born citizens without a single objection from anyone”
I believe that is a lie and there is no record to prove such a claim. But even if there were, it means absolutely nothing. All that matters is the words that the American public ratified. Congress is irrelevant as to what those words mean. They aren’t governed by anyone’s opinion, whether in Congress or not. They’re governed solely by the meaning of words and the words of the 14th Amendment require subjection to U.S. political jurisdiction, and only immigrants and citizens are subject to it.
No foreigner who lives in a foreign country is subject to the political jurisdiction of any nation other than his own. When Americans visit foreign nations, can they be drafted into their armies? No. Because they aren’t subject to foreign jurisdiction unless they take up permanent residency. That an element of the Law of Nation. AN
“In any case, the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and includes ALL who are born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats, etc. And that is the meaning, and a desire to bar a “Muslim” from becoming president does not change it.”
You’ve made more than one erroneous assumption. First, the meaning of natural born citizen does not come from the common law but from Natural Law. It’s an invented term that refers only to citizens whose citizenship is by nature, and it is from birth and by birth. Second, you misconstrue the meaning of the word “etc.” It is not some insignificant appendage. You included it because it’s always include when foreign diplomats are mention in this context. Why? Because it has a SIGNIFICANT meaning.
It just happens to include every parent that’s under the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Is anyone so clueless as to assume that all national jurisdiction ends at the border? Can an American open a warehouse across the border and from it sell prohibited items to Iran or Cuba? Can living in Mexico exempt an 18 year old from the requirement to register for the Selective Service? Can the U.S. government conscript foreign visitors, tourists, and student as they were American citizens or immigrants that are under U.S. jurisdiction? AN
ETC. meanings a hell of a lot more than just diplomats. It’s every foreigner who is not a legal immigrant but remains subject to the jurisdiction of their own government. In a more perfect world the children of domiciled illegal aliens should only constitute a tiny number of people -, and they would be in a morally gray area where no principle of natural law applies. But the subject in question wouldn’t be their status as a natural born citizen or not, but would be the subject of whether they are constitutional citizens or foreigners. AN
“Domcile is not necessary. See my post above regarding Canadian border babies. Their mothers gave birth in the US simply because the hospital was in the US town near them was closer than the nearest Canadian hospital. Then they took the baby home and the child in some cases never set foot again in the US. They are still US citizens. Canada had to change its citizenship laws in 2007 to make sure they could have Canadian citizenship as well. That is the law.”
The bastardized policy adopted by the asinine INS is in violation of constitutional law, as is any and all court rulings that stupidly and illegitimately disregard the requirement of subjection to U.S. federal jurisdiction. When the government came to the juncture where it had to choose between the !4th Amendment and the brain-dead simplicity of pure jus soli citizenship, it foolishly chose the latter, resulting in the asinine situation of a cross-border Canadian birth that resulted in the mindless granting of U.S. citizenship to a foreign national. How much worse can the incompetence of government get? -I’d rather not know. AN