• SiteMeter

Congress has defined what a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ is

Congress defines NBC in 1839 – Congressional Bombshell

The following is a clear definition of a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as one born to two parents (plural) in the House of Representitives

Link to article

 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llhj&fileName=033/llhj033.db&recNum=397&itemLink=D?hlaw:1:./temp/~ammem_dJlZ::%230330398&linkText=1

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1838-1839
MONDAY, January 28, 1839.

 Mr. Heman Allen submitted the following resolution; which was read, and debate arising, it was laid over, under the rule, viz:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the law on the subject of naturalization, as to exclude those from the privileges of natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parents who have been removed, or shall remove, from the United States, and have taken or shall take the oath of allegiance to the Government in which they so reside, until such person shall become naturalized like other foreigners, agreeably to the laws that now do or hereafter may exist on that subject.

In plain simple english ‘natural-born citizens who are or shall be born of parentsfrom the United States.

Title 8 and the 14th Amendment both state;  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy fourth edition
Under Jus Soli, the following is written “The Supreme Court’s first holding on the sublect suggested that the court would give a restrictive reading to the phrase, potentially disqualifing significant number of persons born within the physical boundries of the nation. In Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.CT. 41, 28 L.ED. 643 (1884), the court ruled that native Indians were not U.S. citizens, even if they later severed their ties with their tribes. The words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the court held, mean “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.” Most Indians could not meet the test. “Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian Tribes, (an alien through dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’*** then the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government ***. Id. at 102.
It continues that Congress eventually passed legislation with the ‘Allotment Act of 1887, that conferred citizenship on many Indians.

The fact remains, the Court held, complete and sole Jurisdiction. As I have held that being born anywhere in the United States, jurisdiction is required, sole and complete, and Barack Hussein Obama was already claimed by British jurisdiction under the British Nationailty Act of 1948, and as such fails the United states Constitutional requirement of a Natural Born Citizen.

Barack Obama has admitted that not only was his father a foreign national, but that he himself was a British Subject at birth. A British Subject is a foreign national and how can a foreign national be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution?

So explain how “not merely subjct in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiange.”

So to ‘what’ degree was Barack Hussein Obama under US Jurisdiction at birth? Knowing that he was already under British jurisdiction, and how that being only partial or to whatever degree you impose not being in conflict with “completely subject to”?

Update Feb 15, 2010 - Explained so even an Obot can understand

What they are talking about is revoking citizenship of based on both parents being removed or renouncing their citizenship, by either taking an oath of allegiance to another country, and that their childern shall become like naturalized citizens. Due to their parents now having foreign inflence and possible conflict of interest in reationships.

But the fact remains, in ‘Natural Born Citizens’ are those children born to parents, and they used the terms ‘who are and shall be born’, present and future tense.

About these ads

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers

%d bloggers like this: