Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: editor-surveyor

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
+++++++++++++++

Right. An important clause. But it says nothing about those slaves parents. Again the NBC for BO is a seperate issue. If Obama was born in HI, he’s a US citizen at birth (albeit perhaps he was a dual citizen.) But he may not be/have been a NBC. The SCOTUS needs to rule on that.

There’s a move afoot in CA and elsewhere though to challenge the citizen status of anchor babies. This might affect this debate in the future (of who’s a citizen at birth and who a ‘natural born citizen’ is.)

http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m7d1-California-is-closer-to-ending-illegal-Anchor-Baby-births


7,686 posted on 08/06/2009 4:19:43 PM PDT by SeattleBruce (God, Family, Church, Country & the Tea Party! Take America Back! (Objective media? Try BIGOTS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7646 | View Replies ]


To: SeattleBruce

It didn’t need to address the slave’s parents.

The authors of the ammendment definitely were addressing the parents of any future births. At that time, all minors were the property of their parents, and their legal status could not be ‘legal’ if their parents were not also legal.

IOW, visa or green card holders.


7,688 posted on 08/06/2009 4:27:04 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7686 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson