Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it...an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.
Thus a foreign national here is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, up to and including treason! Unless you are exempted by treaty, you are under the full jurisdiction of the United States when you are on US soil. And that includes treason.
Why include treason if you weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US? How can I - a US citizen - commit treason within Germany, without being a German citizen? Treason itself is the act against your Government; here's the definition from Merriam Webster's dictionary:
1 : the betrayal of a trust : treachery
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Clearly the second definition is of import here, and we see it as an act to overthrow the state to which the offender owes allegiance! How can a foreign national owe allegiance to the US unless they are inherently subject to our full jurisdiction (being here voluntarily means accepting such jurisdiction and hence, granting at least limited allegiance). The case of Carlisle v US makes that explicitly clear:
Every foreigner residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it.
Meaning that - if your father is a British or Canadian or Venezuelan citizen - while present in the US (unless here as an ambassador, or other exempted individual) - he owes allegiance and obedience to the US. The jurisdiction of the US is supreme over that foreign national.
If anything, your quote strengthens the case further that President Obama was subject to the full jurisdiction of the US at birth, and his father was likewise subject to that jurisdiction.
If anything, your quote strengthens the case further that President Obama was subject to the full jurisdiction of the US at birth, and his father was likewise subject to that jurisdiction.
You know, you’re pretty funny. So if 0bama Jr and Sr both were subject to US jurisdiction in the same manner, 0bama Sr could have become president.
Reeeeally convincing!
unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.
WKA was subject to the treaty between the US & China. Under the Chinese Exclusion Act, which upheld Chinese Law, the Chinese immigrants and their children, could not legally become US citizens by accord of the treaty.
WKA fails no matter what twist you try to take. And also the fact that you try to change the subject by bringing in laws pertaining treason and you use such limited/edited definitions from a modern dictionary, not definitions that wee used at the time of the adoption of the constitution, again shows your desperation to somehow make dual citizenship a law, when in fact it is not according to the current US State Dept. They say it is accepted, but they do not condone the practice of it. Accepted by looking the other way does not make it Law of the Land!
So far you have shown nothing and you have linked to nothing. Therefore your rebuttals are without merit.