THIS IS MY SHORTEST BUT ONE OF MY MOST IMPORTANT POSTS

Three weeks from now the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Birthright Citizenship. Since 2009, I’ve written over 36 blogs on various aspects of the 14th Amendment, Birthright Citizenship, and Natural Born Citizenship.

This post will avoid the ‘granularity’ of deep dive research and get right to the point.

Please, share it with as many of your friends as possible.

If parents have existing foreign citizenship, the 14th Amendment ‘born in the United States’ citizenship at birth clause DOES NOT APPLY to their children.

WHY? Because the child already has the citizenship of their parents’ national jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment was drafted from the 1866 Civil Rights Act to ‘cure’ stateless children whose parents had no nationality to confer, NOT to create ‘dual’ or ‘hybrid’ citizens which is a Conflict of Law.

The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote:

“[E]very 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.” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)

And that is, as Thomas Jefferson advised, the language and intent of the law as written.

Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark and all the ‘experts’ and jurists who declare ‘native birth’ provides the fundamental right of citizenship, citing hundreds of opinions, misinterpreting what ‘jurisdiction’ is, or saying ‘legal domicile’ to make the ‘State wherein they reside’ mean something it never did, are merely gaslighting.

The truth is, as you’ve seen here, much simpler and direct.

Again, please share this. And you are welcome to read my latest blogs on Birthright Citizenship and how the Wong Kim Ark case was decided unconstitutionally.

2 responses to “THIS IS MY SHORTEST BUT ONE OF MY MOST IMPORTANT POSTS”

  1. arnash Avatar
    arnash

    It appears that you have conflated mere citizenship with natural born citizenship in your reference to the 14th Amendment. It is not related to the natural citizens of America but solely to those who are NOT natural citizens via inheritance of national membership. It is not worded as strictly as the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in that it doesn’t preclude native-born citizenship for those with foreign fathers as long as the father WAS subject to the US government as are ALL permanent resident foreigners. It is only the foreigners who are only temporarily sojourning in the US (people with mere Visas) or are attached to a foreign embassy or consulate. THEY owe no allegiance to the United States, but every permanent resident DOES… and as I previously informed you, can be conscripted into the US military and sent to their death in war. THOSE are the facts regardless of their inconvenience.

    Reply
  2. paraleaglenm Avatar
    paraleaglenm

    No, No, No.

    You wish or think that the 14th Amendment departs from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, but the legislative history, i.e., the 1866 Civil Rights Act AND the quote from Senator Bingham and others in 1866 and 1868 (see The Congressional Globe) makes the language and intent clear–if the father has foreign nationality the child is of that foreign nationality.

    That’s all there is to it. If you start messing around and adding ‘native born’ or ‘legal domicile’ you are merely gaslighting yourself.

    ‘Native Born’ was a fallback condition for citizenship ONLY IF THE FATHER HAD NO NATIONALITY TO CONFER, PERIOD. That’s why they had to create the 1866 Act, to ‘cure’ the stateless condition. If you add ‘native born’ to the law you get dual citizenship, i.e., Conflicts of Law. That is one reason (there are several) that the Wong Kim Ark case that created native born citizenship was unconstitutional.

    It is that simple. Add anything else and you are gaslighting as badly as the judges in the Wong Kim Ark case.

    For 108-years of U.S. law, with the exception of freed slaves and ‘Indians taxed,’ there was no such thing as a ‘native born citizen’ under the law. You either were a natural born citizen through your father, or a ‘citizen by operation of naturalization law.‘ If you were born outside the U.S. with a U.S. citizen father, you were a natural born citizen with all the rights, privileges, and guarantees of a child of a U.S. citizen father born in the U.S.. No difference.

    Reply

Leave a reply to paraleaglenm Cancel reply