Replies

) James Madison (a Framer and eventual President) is formally on record that the rule of citizenship in America was jus solis, not jus sanguinis.

Back to square one, right. OK Lets make it simple.

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.

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.

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”?

Mind you this is The Supreme Court that has stated complete and not partial to any degree jurisdiction.

Now, back to your corner wiggie and chant the montra;

The Obot Creed

I believe in Barack Obama, the bearer of Hope and Change

And in his rhetoric, and tales of woe

Who was born of the mother Stanley, in a place unknown

In the sixth year migrated to Indonesia

He ascended to the Senate, and unqualified, usurped the Presidency

Who suffered under Orly Taitz and was slurred by racist birthers

I believe in spreading the wealth

Of the taxes and levies therein,

the loss of freedom, that cost doesn’t matter

That healthcare is free

As long as I don’t have pay

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 allegiance.”

Of course they did.

And anybody born on American soil (who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army) is completely subject to US political jurisdiction, owing our country direct and immediate allegiance to the United States of America.

For the life of me, I have no idea why you keep asking the same goofy question after it's already been answered multiple times.

I know that when I travel overseas, I am completely subject to the legal and political jurisdiction of the country I am visiting. Just as foreigners visiting the US are completely subject to the legal and political jurisdiction of the US. You don't think so? Okay. Go to the UK and assemble an arsenal of assault weapons, then try and tell the Brits "Screw your laws, I'm an American and I have the right to bear arms."

Any and all sovereign nations have complete and absolute control over the laws in effect on their soil. This is why the whole "International Criminal Court" is a total farce. They have no impact, influence or authority over our sovereignty.

This is, by the way, also what de Vattel believed.

I am constantly stunned at the Birther insistence that every other piddly little 3rd world nation on the planet can trump American law on our own soil. "Patriots?" I think not.

The law has also consistently understood that "direct and immediate allegiance" is an obligation a child owes to the government that at birth is providing it protection. I.e. the government that controls the territory on which that child is born. This is covered (as are all these issues) in detail in the Wong Kim Ark decision. For example (depending surprise, surprise on Blackstone rather than de Vattel):

"Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be [p660] subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince."

I will, for at least the third time, quote Wong Kim Ark on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction of..."

"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."