The author at the site you posted says:
“The legislative definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ [in the 14th amendment] was defined as ‘Not owing allegiance to anybody else.’”
I’d like to know what his source for that is. I’ve certainly never understood being under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws means to have no possible allegiance to any other country. Are not resident aliens and illegal aliens alike subject to U.S. laws when they’re here? Did not Wong Kim Ark and Elg alike upturn this view, if it ever existed?
He also goes on to ask why born citizens don’t have to pass through the same requirements as naturalized citizens, meaning why can born citizens have split allegiances and be “natural” while the naturalized have to plead loyalty to the U.S. in order to become citizens. Duh. Because born citizens are citizens by right, not by provisional concession by the government.
Speaking of right, the author goes on at length about Natural Law, which is where he loses me completely. I personally don’t find anything more “natural” about blood than soil. If anything, I’d think the earth, the dirt, the domain, the “homeland,” is more central to the heart of the state than its individual subjects.
But I digress. The idea is that to be “natural,” citizenship cannot be by decree. Has to be automatic. And we’re to believe blood is more automatic than soil. First of all, we do not live under Natural Law. We live under man-made laws. That’s an important distinction. Natural Law is for God and the philosophers to keep. The rest of us live in the real world.
Secondly, it’s not as if blood babies don’t need any man-made laws to come into being. In order to be a U.S. citizen, there has to be a U.S., and there was no U.S. before the Constitution was ratified. Ipso facto, the prerogatives of the father pass onto the son by virtue of man-made laws.
I’d recommend some peripheral reading. If you search my posts since yesterday you’ll see several posts on this along with links.
Those links provide detailed discussions with a great deal of linked documentation.
If you read some of the essays and follow the links you’ll become conversant in the topics, otherwise it is just regurgitating what may or may not be accurate here on FR.
Distilled down it goes like this:
Obama claims dual citizenship at birth.
The 14th was aimed first at slaves then others.
The authors of the 14th spoke of sole jurisdiction and undivided allegiance and how the intention of NBC status was for children of citizens, those without undivided loyalties.
The US State Dept states clearly that those with dual citizenship have dual loyalties and are under dual jurisdictions.
Find the links. Follow the links. Read more than just a few quotes from FR.