The 14th Amendmant states that Children of Diplomats are not US citizens.
What type of visa did Obamas father have ? A diplomatic Visa?
If yes, and if his father then documented it in the birth records ... he’s an illegal Alien not an NBC.
If yes, and if his father then documented it in the birth records ... he’s an illegal Alien not an NBC.
He had a student visa and even if he didn't, American citizens (Stanley Ann) don't give birth to illegal aliens. It doesn't work that way.
She may have listed herself as a Kenyan Citizen on the BC.
Why Rahm went go to Kenya? To locate and destroy documents.
It does? Where here in sect. 1 of the 14th do those words appear?
Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I am sick of people quoting imaginary words in the amendment, when in fact hey were in the 1866 Act, which preceded the 14th:
The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”[4] And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”[5] (i.e., under the 1866 Act). That meant that the children of Indians who still “belong[ed] to a tribal relation” and hence owed allegiance to another sovereign (however dependent the sovereign was) would not qualify for citizenship under the clause. Because of this interpretative gloss, provided by the authors of the provision, an amendment offered by Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin explicitly to exclude “Indians not taxed,” as the 1866 Act had done, was rejected as redundant.[6]
The interpretative gloss offered by Senators Trumbull and Howard was also accepted by the Supreme Court-by both the majority and the dissenting justices-in The Slaughter-House Cases.[7] The majority in that case correctly noted that the “main purpose” of the clause “was to establish the citizenship of the negro” and that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”[8] Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Bradley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
Those words you use are from congressional records & Supreme Court opinions. They have NEVER appeared in the 14th or the 1866 Act as you say. It also is just like the statist to dismiss the the later part of the record which I again reiterate:
“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
HYPOCRITES! And I am also sick of their elitist know it all attitudes, so from now on, quote the entire phrase or face more of the constitutionalist wrath because we are not sitting silent anymore!
Sorry for any confusion.
regarding post 148: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2484668/posts?page=148#148