Foreign Born Americans

It is utterly fallacious to assert that natural born citizenship for children of Americans is conveyed solely by birth on US soil,  and that citizenship for American children born abroad is not automatic and not naturally passed to them.   One does not have to be native born in order to be an American citizen because citizenship is passed from the parents to the child,  (jus sanguinis) not from the dirt, the soil, (jus solis)   to the child.   One is not naturally born by being native born.   That’s confusing the issue of geography with parentage.   Regardless of where on the planet (or off the planet) one is when born, American citizenship is passed to the off-spring of American citizens by the mere act of being born to them.   It is a natural inheritance not requiring any amendment, statute, code, or Supreme Court decision.   It is citizenship by birth, not citizenship by geography.  That would be insane, and no other nation on earth has such a skewed interpretation of what constitutes the basis of citizenship.  In the Greisser case , the children of immigrants born in the US are not citizens until after their parents are naturalized. Being native born is not being natural born because they inherited the nationality of their parents (who were not subjects of the jurisdiction of the US Federal government because they were subjects of a foreign power and were under its jurisdiction.   Those children were subject to being drafted into the military of the parents’ native country even during a situation of being at war with the US.   They were not US citizens! -regardless of being born on US soil, and they definitely were not natural born citizens.   The framers of the Constitution were concerned with who the parents of a presidential candidate might be, not the legal jurisdiction of the dirt one was born on.  National loyalty is learned and  acquired from the parents, not from the soil, though it naturally contributes if one is not only born but also raised in the land of their birth.


The wording of the 14th Amendment gives citizenship to those born in the United States but with the condition that they be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”.    A baby cannot be “subject” to the jurisdiction of a government, since it is subject to nothing but its nature.   A child of understanding age is subject to the jurisdiction of its parents. Hence a child (born to foreigners on US soil) cannot, without the consent of the parents, have US citizenship imposed on it merely by reason of the location of birth.   That is not the policy of a free society but of a tyranny.   Being subject to any government is either a matter of choice or it is oppression.   Free will is involved. It’s either subjection by choice or acceptance, or it’s subjection by force and intimidation.   One involves freedom of choice, the other involves total domination. If visiting foreign parents are loyal to their homeland and consider themselves its subjects, no government has the right to over-ride their choice of citizenship/ nationality for their newborn simple because the birth came within the borders of that visited nation.   Only if the parents are willfully and circumstantially subject to the US government can US citizenship be imparted to their US-born off-spring.   If it were not so by common reason and international law, then if a plane carrying US citizens was forced to land in North Korea, and an American woman gave birth during the time spent on the ground, then North Korea could claim the baby was subject to its jurisdiction because it was born within its borders and therefore it was not free to leave since its citizenship was determined not by the citizenship of its parents, but by the political geography of its place of birth.  If the US can make such a claim over any baby born on its soil, then all nations can do likewise.  Not as a gift of privilege but as a form of ownership, which all totalitarian regimes adhere to over “their” citizens.  So, the location is irrelevant, unless it’s the permanent home of the foreign parents and they are subject to the jurisdiction of their new homeland.  One could add “and they are here legally” but that gets into the issue that the authors of the 14th amendment didn’t have an illegal foreign invasion in mind when they limited their words to “All persons born…” .

  • paraleaglenm Says:
    April 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm | Reply Yes. A minor child is ward of its parents, not the state. It is sheer hubris for a state to declare subjection and allegiance to the child of an alien . . . unless that alien is here illegally and trying to scam us for social services.

Posted elsewhere by johnmarshall on Apr 16, 2011 13:04

However, while jus solis as the determining principle was practiced in the colonies, that tenet based merely on tenancy and place of birth ended in 1790 with the first of Uniform Naturalization laws.

That act described three classes of citizenship:

First.  Aliens, having resided for a certain time “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,” and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record.

Second. Children of persons so naturalized, “dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization.”

Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993; as cited in Wong Kim Ark (1897).

Note that the Second includes minor children of naturalized aliens. No distinction of a Fourth class of native-born is made.

Here is settled law in the Greisser case:

“Sections 1992 and 1993 of the Revised Statutes clearly show the extent of existing legislation; that the fact of birth, under circumstances implying alien subjection, establishes, of itself, no right of citizenship, and that the citizenship of a person so born is to be acquired in some legitimate manner through the operation of statute.
Greisser was born in the State of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned.”

After quoting the act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said:

Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth “subject to a foreign power,” and “not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”  He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth, and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.

In the end, the ‘idiom’ of ‘natural born citizen’ is clear enough within the context of Article II. The framers did not intend a ‘native-born’ son of a domiciled British loyalist access to the highest executive office and as Commander-in-Chief. Barack Hussein Obama is the son of an alien, non-immigrant British subject bigamist . . . and the U.S. citizenship of Dunham only allowed specific naturalization laws to provide Obama U.S. citizenship upon the abandonment of the father, making Dunham the only legal parent.

Birth in the United States had no power to confer citizenship on Obama, or illegal aliens for that matter . . . that is a fantasy promulgated by liberal justices, taking the poetry of the Statue of Liberty as precedent . . . maybe they misspelled Lady Liberty as a ‘statute,’ rather than ‘statue.’

2 Responses to Foreign Born Americans

  1. arnash says:

    arnash Says:
    April 20, 2011 at 12:24 pm | Reply

    Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark: “[I]t can hardly be doubted that the words of that [1866 Civil Rights] act, “not subject to any foreign power,” were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents . . .” This view fails to take into account the
    rules of national jurisdiction and accepted international law and respect for national sovereignty over citizens. “not subject to any foreign power,” actually was intended to distinguish between children born to immigrant US residents who had fled from poor, backward lands looking for a better life in a new homeland, and those who were middle-upper class citizens of more prosperous modern lands who were mere visitors and remained totally under the sovereignty of their own nation. They were not under US jurisdiction because that would include the authority to order them to not leave the country, even against their wishes. The US government assumed no such authority over foreign guests, nor could it draft them into military service. Nor could it assume jurisdiction over their children, including any born during their time in the US. So there is a distinction between foreigners, some who were under foreign jurisdiction and subject to a foreign power, and some who were permanent US residents. I think it’s fairly safe to assume that this distinction was not spelled out in the law even though it should have been, but that would be taking the long road and sometimes Congress just doesn’t mind keeping it short (while failing to consider and legislate for the situations that are the exception rather than the rule). Just keeping it simple, that’s Congress, except when it comes to the tax code. blog source

  2. arnash says:

    Russell O.

    My understanding is that if he was born here, he is “native born”, like the children of illegal aliens. To be a “natural born citizen”, which is a
    higher requirement, required only of the president, is that both of his parents have to be citizens; they can be native born or naturalized
    citizens, but they BOTH have to be citizens At least that’s what the founders who inserted the requirement into the Constitution expected. The “natural law” view of the phrase “natural born Citizen” at the time of America’s founding – going back
    to Emmerich de Vattel’s 1758 classic, “Law of Nations” – requires citizen parents at the time of the individual’s native birth. The historic view is
    not in doubt; but interpretation of the 14th Amendment and the U.S. Code’s variations for “citizenship” have clouded the “natural born” definition for some.

    The founding fathers were concerned with dual loyalty. His father is Kenyan, which was an English colony at the time of his birth,
    so he can’t confer “natural born status”. If he was born in Kenya, and there is evidence that he was, then his mother did not qualify to confer
    “natural born” status on his either. She had to have been physically present in the U.S. for 10 years prior to the birth of her child, five of
    those years had to have been after the age of 14. His mother was only 18. Here is Philip Berg’s Supreme Court brief on the case >

    Then there is the matter of his adoption. His adoption was a matter of record & his admission. When he was adopted, he acquired Indonesian
    citizenship. That would make him a dual-citizen, which the Constitution didn’t allow. So, what is his status now? Who knows?

    The ultimate question is whether the Supreme Court would define the natural born clause as requiring an unbroken chain of allegiance to the United
    States. That question remains unanswered because remarkably not one congressional or judicial hearing has been held on the substance of Obama’s
    constitutional eligibility.”
    Read more:Presidential eligibility: Why it matters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: