By Adrien Nash
It needs to be recognized that when it comes to citizenship, there’s a difference between being born of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign power (per the Civil Rights Act of 1866) and not being subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Both can be the case … as was so for the native Americans who were not subject to American sovereignty nor that of any foreign power.
Foreign attachment has an impact on a foreigner’s children born in the U.S. His children can fall into three distinct classes.
1. His foreign-born children who have foreign citizenship become U.S. citizens only after the father is naturalized.
2. His American-born children are common-law citizens “at birth” by automatic naturalization, but being born to non-naturalized parents means they are not natural born citizens.
3. But if the parents are naturalized then the children are natural born citizens from the perspective of the principle on which naturalization is grounded.
Why does the parents’ naturalization make a difference in which of their children are eligible to be the President? Because, even though such parents may be well integrated into American society as permanent residents who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they retain a bond of allegiance to the nation of their birth until they sever it with this oath:
“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; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, so help me God”
Without having taken that oath, no foreigner can ever produce a child that’s a natural born citizen, (even though they can pro-create an unlimited number of naturalized citizen children) since the alien parents are not natural American citizens via the legal fiction of natural-ization.
That is what the Obamalytes are unwilling to acknowledge; -that natural-ization is essential in order for foreigners to produce natural citizens because without it they remain foreigners and can’t produce natural citizens of any nation except their own, (the nation of their birth and upbringing and citizenship).
The 14thAmendment children they produce, while not lacking citizenship, are only citizens by automatic naturalization at birth, but they aren’t citizens by nature because that requires that the parents be Americans, not foreigners. This is not rocket science.
Obama’s father was:
(a.) NOT an immigrant
(b.) NOT a legal permanent resident
(c.) NOT a naturalized American citizen
The consequence of his father being nothing more than a temporary foreign student visitor was that he was subject to the jurisdiction of Britain and fell under the governance of U.S. federal policy and international treaties covering international guests.
He was not subject to the political will, rules, or orders of Washington except in regard to an allowance for limited employment and how long he was permitted to stay . Therefore citizenship via the 14th Amendment was not applicable to his child since neither were under the subjection required of the amendment.
Birth in the U.S.A. was irrelevant to citizenship via the 14th Amendment since the amendment didn’t cover him.
As long as the precedent set in Minor v Happersett stands, Obama is not a natural born citizen by any definition that was extant in the time of the framing of the Constitution, and no other definition has superseded it.
The citizenship issue in that Supreme Court case was not on whether or not a person such as Barack Obama was a natural born citizen or not, but whether or not he was a United States citizen at all (as apposed to being merely a naturalized state citizen).
The 14th Amendment is irrelevant because its jurisdiction requirement is not met by visiting foreigners who remain, along with any child born to them, subject and attached to their own government, -to their own homeland and the society where they still maintain their domicile. Consequently, Obama is not a natural born American citizen, -is not even a citizen at all, and is thus ineligible to be the President.
The Constitution makes no mention of any requirement of native birth, -only of natural citizenship by birth, but it does not allow any foreign-born and raised American to be President until he has been full domesticated, assimilated, and Americanized by 14 years of residency.
Why was that number chosen? Perhaps because that is the number of years between 21 and 35. That leaves the door wide open for foreign-born natural citizens who are raised and schooled overseas, and only “emigrate” to the nation of their citizenship upon adulthood. They are eligible to be the President at the age of 35 if they have lived in the U.S. since they were 21.
Of course the Art II clause doesn’t spell-out that scenario so the years of residency could be any years, but it is logical to attach some significance to the number 14, and that significance may related to the time period between 21 and 35. That implies that place of birth was not a requirement, but parentage was.
Fourteen years of Americanization of American children was fully accepted as sufficient to produce full loyalty to their country, just as 7 years was for representatives, and 9 years was for Senators, and no delineated number of years were required for federal judges, including the Chief Justice, nor for military generals and admirals. The framers had confidence in the allegiance of Americans by blood who had lived in their country for at least 14 years, along with trust in the public who might vote for them.
An unacceptable scenario would be a U.S. birth to a foreign couple whose child obtains common law state citizenship but who return to perhaps England and raise their child there as a loyal, proud British subject, who upon 21 years of age moves to the United States with unknown motives and allegiance and ideology and 14 years later runs for the Presidency. Which scenario would definitely not be acceptable to the framers of the Constitution? The first or the second?
Clearly the second. No son of a loyal British subject could be permitted to hold the top reigns of military power in the United States and that fact alone is logical proof that no son of a foreigner who owed allegiance to a foreign ruler or nation would be considered to possess the type of citizenship required to be President. Otherwise such a potential usurper and enemy of U.S. sovereignty would be allowed to be Commander in Chief. That may be just fine to the Obamalytes but it was totally unacceptable to the founding fathers.
If parents are not native members of a given group then they cannot produce native children of the group. Their children are only accepted as group members by legal permission, because they are not natural members by nature.
Since such children’s parents were foreigners when they were born, they could not produce a natural member of the American group anymore than American parents can produce natural members of a foreign group. Their citizenship would be of the naturalized-at-birth variety via the 14th Amendment which, unlike Obama and his father, applied to them because their immigrant parents were subject to U.S. jurisdiction. They were legal permanent residents and not temporary foreign students whose homeland allegiance was still in effect.
By the simple principle of Natural Law, -as mentioned on in Minor v Happersett, children born of foreigners can not be viewed as being born as natural citizens, But we’ve seen that the rules of history, natural law, court determinations, and common sense can be completely ignored while bias, indifference, or fear of rocking the boat leave many supporting the status quo “jus soli” view of citizenship.
If the lame-stream media will swallow TWO forged birth certificate images, they are just as likely to not develop any original curiosity about the nature of Obama’s citizenship. That’s too complicated. Splitting hairs is hard, and rocking the boat could be dangerous to one’s career, if not one’s life.