Behind the Delusion that Native Birth = Presidential Eligibility
September 3, 2015 13 Comments
The framers of the Constitution mandated in its text that: “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 the President,”, and by writing and accepting that language were not attempting to convey that once the Constitution was ratified any sort of citizen could be President except the naturalized. Rather, they barred for life those who were born as foreigners and not as Americans regardless of their native-birth or subsequent naturalization.
The did not write that one must be a native-born citizen and did not intend that anyone assume that that was what they meant when employing the word “natural” in “natural born citizen”. Otherwise they would have written “native born citizen” instead. But they carefully and thoughtfully avoided using the word “native”.
That much is clear and should be undisputed, but there was something else which was disputed and was very, very unclear because of the colonial connection to Britain and the British common law. What the framers wrote regarding the type of citizen that was eligible was clouded in a mist of confusion due to almost two centuries of British bastardization of their own nationality principles.
That bastardization served the King and nation, increasing his power by extending his jurisdiction over babies that were not his natural subjects but were subjects of a foreign king, namely the king of Scotland. A confounding conundrum that Britain faced was due to the Queen leaving no male heir to ascend the throne, so they were leaderless.
They needed a king, and so they adopted the Scottish king as their own. One king, two kingdoms. Two Parliaments, two crowns, two judicial systems, two ancient traditions, and two legal systems, -with one man as head of both. (It was a full century before they combined the two (along with Ireland) into the United Kingdom.)
To bring the Scots under the advantages of British law regarding land and inheritance, they had to have a change of identity since British law forbade all but British subjects from inheriting property, so instead of leaving them as foreigners, which they were since they were Scottish born and not British born, their relationship to the British nation had to be redefined.
That was done by abandoning recognition of their foreign relationship to the British people and emphasizing instead their new relationship of subjection to the new King of Britain. They were henceforth his subjects also, and in order to provide them equal treatment under the law in Britain they had to be equated to the sons of Britain. That was accomplished by altering the language by which they were labeled.
A new term was created by Lord Coke, a chief judge charged with making the transition legal, and that term was “natural-born subject”. The Scots were not natural subjects of the King of Great Britain because they were natural subjects of the Scottish king, only both kings were one and the same person. So it was easy to blur the natural principle involved in natural national membership (subjectship in the case of the two monarchies) and blur it they did.
The new term to describe all subjects was “natural-born subject”. It worked to combine two different concepts and realities: those “foreign” Scots born after King James VI of Scotland ascended the British throne and became King James I in Britain, were born as his subjects (although their fathers weren’t), while those who were born in Britain of British fathers were the British king’s natural subjects since their fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers going back centuries were British. So it was rather natural to combine “natural subject” and “born subject” into one term which rendered them all equal and legally indistinguishable.
That was the term, and the only term that applied in the colonies which were settled in the decades following Lord Coke’s legal determination regarding British nationality. It meant that if one was born within the King’s dominion, regardless of one’s ancestry and parentage, then one would be considered to be a “natural-born subject” of the King based purely on native-birth alone.
Everyone born within the reach of the King’s authority, meaning within his dominion and under his jurisdiction, was thereby deemed to be his subject for life regardless of having been born to foreigners who still owed allegiance to their own king and country. But by abandoning their own homeland and becoming members of British society they were viewed as being under the king’s sovereign authority and thus their child was born under it as well, making him or her the king’s “natural-born subject”.
Other than naturalization by oath of allegiance, that was the only avenue of nationality assignment in the colonies from the first one to the last one. That did not change during nor after the revolution except that native-born children were born as citizens (not subjects) of the former colony in which their birth took place.
Everyone born of colonial citizen parents was a citizen regardless of birth place, and anyone born within the republic was a citizen regardless of having a foreign father. So you had the 98% who were natural citizens by being citizen-born and you had the 2% who were common law citizens by being foreigner-born (i.e., alien-born).
Were all of the foreigner-fathered sons eligible to serve as President? That would depend on what “natural born citizen” meant. To many of those born and raised in the British system, which was the only one they were familiar with, they leapt to the conclusion that a native-born citizen was indistinguishable from a natural-born subject, and they used the terms (along with natural born citizen) interchangeably since their British-trained lawyer minds were indoctrinated and habituated to thinking in terms of British law.
But the framers of the Constitution adopted a different perspective and way of thinking, a natural way rather than an unnatural British way. They were the type of American that signed the treasonous Declaration of Independence, endorsing its natural law principles.
They held to separate and distinguishing differences between the two similar terms. They rejected the King’s nationality assignment based solely on the location of the mother and her womb at the moment of birth, and returned to natural assignment as was the pattern throughout all of nature; -the off-spring having the same nature as the parents (i.e., the same national identity, membership and citizenship) -as had been the nationality policy going back to the foundation of all civilizations.
That fact was not made visibly manifest until the first uniform rule of naturalization was written by the first Congress in 1790. That Congress, comprised of many founders and authors of the Constitution, corrected an omission in the Constitution regarding the nature of the citizenship of American children not native-born. But before addressing them, the act mentions that the children of naturalized foreigners shall be considered to also be citizens of the United States if dwelling in the United States. (!!!)
That easily over-looked statement, and the one that followed it (mandating that foreign-born children of citizens were to be understood to be “natural born citizens”) were, in combination, a mini-revolution. Why? Because that was 100% opposite of British common law and that law was then the law of the States regarding native-birth citizenship. Thus a huge disconnect was established, and it lasted until 1898 when the 14th Amendment citizenship clause was finally ruled to provide native-birth nation-wide citizenship to children of immigrants. That ruling was in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark case.
But the conflict was partially ameliorated five years later (1795) when Congress rewrote the first act and labeled foreign-born American children as “citizens of the United States”, -avoiding the language that indicated that place of birth was irrelevant to presidential eligibility and that parentage was all that determined who is a natural citizen by birth and who is not.
But it retained the language that did not spell it out so overtly, and it was the mention of the right of citizenship by descent, which employs the word “right” to mean natural right and not a mere allowance of government.
Yet the native-born foreigner-fathered children remained an unsettled issue because the states made them common law citizens but the federal government of the United States considered them aliens since they had alien fathers at birth. Once the father was naturalized, they became United States citizens also through him, but what kind of citizen?
They were already native-born State citizens from birth but were they also natural born citizens as though by fertilization, gestation, and birth to American parents and inheritance of the father’s nationality?
They did inherit their father’s nationality, his foreign nationality, and that is why Congress and the State Department refused to recognize them as being both American and foreign. Citizens / subjects cannot serve two masters, two governments, two nations, two systems of law, and two militaries. Dual citizenship was not allowed, and was even despised as national bigamy. So state law was one thing but national law was another. That led to confusion and conflict of law. This is, I assume, a transcript of a speech given in Congress, and thus the punctuation and emphasis has to be assumed:
“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.” – Sen. Jacob Howard, -author of the 14th Amendment
That confusion was in regard to who was simply a citizen, but in our era it extends to who is a natural born citizen and who is born ineligible to ever serve as President. To understand the natural meaning of the term it is necessary to view its language as used in another description, namely: natural born leader.
There are born leaders, and there are natural leaders. There are born natural leaders and natural born leaders. All of those labels means the same thing. What one is born as is what one is by nature. What one is by nature is what one will be born as. Redundancy of language. Unnecessary redundancy.
But in regard to citizenship, the redundancy is necessary. That is because of the confusion resulting from common law citizenship and from naturalization. The common law nationality tradition produced the 14th Amendment and citizenship at birth, -citizenship for freed slaves and their children, -and for native-born children of foreign immigrants. The native-born were born blessed with US citizenship, making them born citizens. Did obtaining citizenship at birth make an American son eligible to be President?
No. It made one ineligible to serve as President according to the language and intent of the founders and framers. Here’s why. Natural citizens do not “obtain” citizenship, -it is not something that they acquire, -not at birth nor after birth nor before birth. Rather, they are born being Americans by nature because they were born of Americans. By nature they are nothing else other than Americans since they had no “foreign blood” (nationality) involved in producing them. Their natural national identity is that of those who produced them.
If born abroad, such as in Canada which follows common law also, one may acquire Canadian citizenship as a gift of the Canadian people but it is unnatural citizenship since it is a product of an artificial process known as law-making. There is no arbitrary, manufactured, law-making process in nature. Rather, nature follows eternal laws and the one of interest is the law of natural membership, -which could be labeled “blood membership”.
Only blood membership is natural. All other forms of membership are artificial, or unnatural (although membership obtained by effort or sacrifice (Navy Seals) is neither natural nor unnatural but is earned, -and unrelated to natural belonging).
So to mandate that the President must be a “born citizen” would have been inherently ambiguous since it fails to distinguish which type of born citizen one must be; one, the other one, or either one? A common law citizen from birth (or at birth) by permission of the 14th Amendment? Or a natural citizen by birth via no law whatsoever? Or either one? Many uninformed persons falsely assume it is “either / or” rather than being willing to acknowledge the meaning of adding the word “natural” to “born citizen”.
“Born citizen” is no longer ambiguous with the addition of “natural” but “natural citizen” alone would also be ambiguous just as is “born citizen”. The reason why is discovered in understanding what naturalization is.
All those born of citizens have all of the rights of their parents since they are naturally citizens through them, inheriting their membership in their nation and replacing them in time as those who constitute the backbone of the nation.
But those not born of citizens have no right to citizenship since their rights are tied to their own homeland, not the land into which they emigrated. So to enjoy equality of citizenship, the founders sought to make all men equal and that could only be secured if all men were natural citizens and thus indistinguishable from each other. Hence the purpose of natural-ization; which is to make a foreigner into a new natural citizen, (or subject) -the equal of the 98% born of citizens.
Naturalization was a form of legal, social, and psychological transformation from what one was born and raised as into something entirely new and different. When one became an American one became a new natural member of the American family, -not an unequal, adopted or foster child-member.
Natural-ization was thus a necessary legal fiction, and a fundamental one at that. The consequence of that fiction could be the fiction that all “natural citizens” are eligible to serve as President, which would mean every citizen. But that is not what the founders and framers were willing to allow except in the case of their own fellow citizens who were born-abroad foreigners who embraced the revolution and its principles 100%, -just like natives. They paid the price for their devotion and were thus worthy of eligibility to lead the American people if elected. Their loyalty had been proven in every way so there was no concern about foreign loyalty.
So to avoid foreign loyalty in a President, he or she must be a real natural citizen, -which means one by birth, not by legal fiction. One must be born as a natural citizen, being a natural born citizen, and not a legal-fiction born citizen via automatic natural-ization upon birth.
THE CONFUSION AND CONFLATION OF NATIVE-BORN AND NATURAL BORN
~a series of quotations by common-law-deluded legislators
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)
“The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).
[note: ideally, he should have said: “natural citizens and naturalized citizens”.]
“Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86.” House Judiciary Chairmen Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1117 (1866).
[note that there are no “rights and privileges” appertaining to natural born citizenship except the one privilege to seek the office of President or Vice-President. All others apply to all citizens, with naturalized citizens Kissinger and Albrecht coming to mind.]
“Mr. HOWARD. I have two objections to this amendment. The first is that it proposes to change the existing Constitution in reference to qualifications of President of the United States. If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who has been naturalized and then become a citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” Sen. Howard, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)
“The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. [NO! IT DOES NOT!!] Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment (!) all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency?” Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).
“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. ”
[note: no one is born in the “allegiance” of the “United States” since neither “the nation” nor the government are the sovereign; We, the People are. But an accurate comparison is unrelated to place of birth since loyalty to one’s nation is not determined by it but by the identity with which one is born, and it comes from the parents and their national membership, i.e., their citizenship.]
“Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England.
[note that “birth” has no defined meaning, nor does “allegiance”. Birth is not the same as “birth place” since birth is a natural event not dependent on location. See how just a little sloppiness of language results in a pathetic introduction of confusing ambiguity? Likewise, allegiance (or loyalty) is not inborn but the result of one’s upbringing and acculturation by parents and schooling. Note that birth place and loyalty do not go together or else that would also be true of anyone born in a hellish dictatorship but smuggled out as an infant. So how can such a falsity be “the rule of the common law”? It couldn’t, but it could and was the false claim of the common law (which permeated his inherited manner of thinking even almost 100 years after the Revolution).]
“There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. [False. This was purely an unsupported claim resulting from ignorance.] The children of ambassadors are, in theory, [IN THEORY! whose theory? British theory.] born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
[Note that native-born children of foreign guests or visitors to the United States, along with children of Native Americans and Mexican marauders were not native-born citizens since their birth place was irrelevant to their national identity. Gypsies, along with their children, were considered to also be foreign outsiders, regardless of birth place.]
“I told him that that I thought a man was eligible for the office of President or Vice President even if he was a citizen of the Territory of Tennessee if he was a native born citizen of the United States…If he is a citizen of the United States, born within the limits of the United States, he is eligible, no matter whether he was born in a territory that never became a state, or born in the District of Columbia, or inside some of the forts of the country.” Rep. Broomall, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.468 (1865)
[What if one was born 100,000 feet above US territory in a helium balloon? Or in the Space Station passing above the US? or born in Antarctica which no nation owns?]
“The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States.” Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869)
“No one who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution, can be voted for.” Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.552 (1865)
“that the President and Vice President must be native born.” Rep. Clarke, Congressional Globe, 2nd session, 40th Congress. 1105 (1868).
“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts; pg. 203 (1877).
“What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History, pg. 113 (1913)
[Note: Wrong! He also must be a resident for at least 14 years.]
“-you shall be permitted to take a position equal in every respect, with the exception, perhaps, of not being eligible to the office of President of the United States, to that of the native-born citizen.” Mr. Schenck, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess., pg. 298 of Appendix (1866).
“The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States…. Is the Congress of the United States prepared at this time to adopt a proposition that Negroes and Indians and Chinese and all persons of that description shall be eligible to the office of President…” Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).
Here is a link to the entire debate of the Senate, from the introduction of SB 61 [Civil Rights Act of 1866], to its approval by the full Senate. They debate every possible circumstance, including all the lies being used today to justify birthright citizenship, and they refused and denied all of them. But try telling a lawyer the truth, that is the last thing they want to hear.
Your problem still remains that Bingham wasn’t talking about the 14th amendment but rather the Civil rights act. There’s also your issue that he didn’t write the citizenship clause and was overruled by others on the committee. Senate Bill 61 was introduced by Senator Trumbull.
NatSovParty The original provision modified what was in the civil rights act of 1866. Howard changed the wording from: all persons born in the of the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.
“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.:
Tell me, Moran, have you ever gotten a jury verdict reversed, have you ever been tried twice for the same offense, ten years apart, when the first attempt resulted in a Dismissal with prejudice against the State, have you ever been up against a judge and prosecutor that denies you or your clients 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights, and won. I have, and never spent one day in law school, but because of a clear, and concise understanding and comprehension of the English language.
If “Foreigners and Aliens”, mean the exact same thing as “members of the families of”, you are the one who needs a re-education. if they have no separate meaning they would not be there, and you know that, but it is easier to deny and lie, than accept the truth.
[note: The presence of the conjunction “or” would have clearly delineated the “foreigners, aliens” from the children of ambassadors, but its absence may indicate that they are in fact one and the same. In fact, the reference to “every other class of persons” indicates a contrasting between one class and all others, -which meant that all children of foreign ambassadors are also foreigners or aliens, while all other native-born children were considered to be citizens regardless of being foreigner-fathered.]
The baby has the same allegiance as the father, as the framers of the 14th Amendment said, a child is born into the allegiance of the father at the time of birth, how stupid are you that you can not understand that simple, direct, and absolutely correct concept. Does the U.S. allow other nations to claim the children of its citizens, as their own, simply because the parents were on a visit and gave birth? NO, the child is born a U.S. citizen, because that is the nation their parents belong to.
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.
“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.”
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.”
[Note: Those elite upper-crust, insulated and isolated lawyers in Congress had no grasp at all of what full jurisdiction entails. It entails the authority to conscript male civilians into the military, half kill them in combat training, and then literally kill them by sending them to their death in withering combat.
It also extends to the power to try them for treason and desertion. No foreign guest or tourist can be tried for treason or desertion, or for refusal to submit to military conscription, but immigrants can be.
The difference between those under the full subjection to a nation’s authority and those not under it is the same difference that determines whether or not their native-born child is a foreigner or an American. That is the principle behind granting a man’s native-born children citizenship.
Is the man obligated to serve his adopted country or is his country still the place that he came from and will return to since it remains his home? If it is then he is not subject to the full government jurisdiction that citizens and immigrants are subject to, and thus neither is his native-born child, making the 14th Amendment literally inapplicable to him.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never adjudicated a case regarding the citizenship of a native-born child of non-immigrants, so the issue of citizenship itself has never been settled by the high court, much less the issue of whether or not one who may not even be a citizen might nevertheless be a “natural born citizen” and eligible to serve as President.
Such a child is under the foreign-government umbrella of his tourist/ temp-worker parents. Such members of foreign societies and nations are not subject as citizens to two different nations and their sovereign laws. They are subject only to one.
But, in the modern-era case of dual-citizenship, involving having a foreign parent, one is put into the situation of either being subject to two nations or having to choose one over the other. Needless to say, that is an unnatural situation, produced by an unnatural union of two different national identities into one marriage and one family.
That is akin to a dog & cat union, producing puttens as off-spring. Puttens would be neither natural born puppies nor natural born kittens since they would be hybrids, -as are all dual-nationality children of parents from two different nations. Not being natural-born citizens leaves them from birth constitutionally barred from ever being eligible to serve as President.
That prohibition made perfect sense when it was written since the United States was the only non-monarchy / democratic republic in the world. But today’s world is richly populated by similar nations so the threat is of a different nature today. Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were born and raised as native-born red-blooded patriotic sons of America regardless of birth to foreign immigrants so their election to the presidency would pose no hidden threat.
But what would pose one would be a native-born child of an extremist ideologue or dictator whose wife gave birth within US borders, then returned home where the child was raised and groomed to one day return and attempt to become the US President, -and the Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. Military power, -and even worse, all U.S. nuclear weapons.]
So we see that today’s delusion that native-birth is sufficient for presidential eligibility has a long history going back perhaps to the founding of the nation.
People related or connected to patriotic native-born fellow American men who long ago (at the time of their birth) were the off-spring of patriotic immigrants who had not yet been allowed by the waiting period to become American citizens, those people saw no difference between such men and their younger brothers who happened to be born after their father took the oath of citizenship and became a full-fledged American citizen.
And indeed, there was no difference except that by the original meaning of “natural born citizen” only the citizen-born brothers were eligible to serve as President. That of course seemed immensely unfair and so people were unwilling to accept a meaning, a truth, that was so discriminatory in such a seemingly unjustified way. Native-born sons had always been viewed as equals to natural born sons as far as their rights of citizenship, so why make a distinction between them when doing so would disenfranchise millions of good, patriotic, competent fellow citizens from the lofty dream of presidential eligibility for all men born in America?
Bear in mind that such a conflict did not exist throughout all of colonial history under British governors, nor post-colonial history since States had governors, not Presidents, and few, if any, of them required that he be a natural born citizen of the land or of the colonies.
It was only after the creation of the office of President of the United States that the issue of natural citizenship and eligibility appeared, -and its only appearance was in the Constitution’s clause covering the qualifications of the President.
There you have it; -the reason that people today are unwilling to accept the truth about what a natural born citizen really is. It is not a thought-out belief but one that we all were raised with by teachers and parents who were also raised with it, as were their teachers and parents. It never matter before because every President (with the exception of the one who became President by assassination; -Chester Arthur) was born of American parents.
That’s why it was never raised as an issue, nor discussed, nor contemplated, -until that is, the rise of the unconstitutional, alien-fathered, foreign-born, world-citizen Barack Hussein Obama. Since then it has been thought about a hell of a lot by those with their minds open. That is seen in the fact that this is the 400th post to my blog, and that doesn’t include the earlier posts that were added as “pages”.
by Adrien Nash Nov. 2015 http://obama–nation.com
~in Adobe PDF format; 9 pages, two columns: Behind the Delusion that Native Birth = Presidential Eligibility
“U.S. non-citizens and dual nationals are required by law to register with the Selective Service System. Most are also liable for induction into the U.S. Armed Forces if there is a draft. They would also be eligible for any deferments, postponements, and exemptions available to all other registrants.
If There is a Military Draft Underway
However, some non-citizens and dual nationals would be exempt from induction into the military if there is a draft, depending on their country of origin and other factors. Some of these exemptions are shown below:
A non-citizen who has lived in the U.S. for less than one year is exempt from induction.
A dual national whose other country of nationality has an agreement with the U.S. which specifically provides for an exemption is exempt from induction
Some countries have agreements with the U.S. which exempt a non-citizen national who is a citizen of both that country and the U.S. from military service in the U.S. Armed Forces. A non-citizen who requests and is exempt under an agreement or bilateral treaty can never become a U.S. citizen, and may have trouble reentering the U.S. if he leaves.
A non-citizen who served at least a year in the military of a country with which the U.S. is involved in mutual defense activities will be exempt from military service if he is a national of a country that grants reciprocal privileges to citizens of the U.S.
During a draft, any claims for exemptions based on any of the above categories would be granted or denied by a man’s Local Board. Military examiners make the final decision about who will be accepted into the military.”
There are some exemptions but not all non-citizen residents are exempt.
And all of those non-citizen residents would be immigrants who came here legally and are seeking U.S. citizenship, not those stealing across the border to “Lay the Golden Egg”. Those people who no one knows who they are, are not subject to the draft, now are they? How can they be, and why the hell would they register?