The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: rebuttal to several points

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: yes,I've been debating this (see in situ)

rebuttal to several points

d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the
United States illegally at the time of birth.

This is a logical fallacy or outright deception by government.

Illegal parents owe 'allelgiance' to their own nation.

1. By the journals of Congress, the Founders, and the sources they relied upon, 'Subject to the Jurisdiction' means 'political allegiance'. I have an entire paper on the matter here.

2. The above paper also establishes the irrefutable fact that it is the 'allegiance' of the 'parents' that makes one 'subject' at birth.

Representative John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the 14th Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” (location: top center column)

Each state IS a 'foreign sovereignty/jurisdiction', thus it specifically excludes those who owe 'allegiance to thier state of the Union'. 8 U.S.C. 1101 (21) and see 8 U.S.C. 1502, 'American national', and 'GPO Style manual, sec 5.23, Nationalities of the NATIVES of the States (of the Union)

(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal
precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court
discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese
parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at
the time, racially ineligible for naturalization.

Here you highlighted the wrong portion of the opinion. The courts were fully aware of this fact although, to my knowledge it was never mentioned. Wong's parent's could NOT be naturalized, because of treaty with CHINA. From my above paper on the subject;

"In 1898, the Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, ruled that Mr. Wong had acquired 14th Amendment citizenship at birth, even though his parents, at the time of his birth, were Chinese immigrants not citizens of the United States. Wong was born in the United States in 1873. The Birlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868, between China and the United States, was in effect at the time. Although it did not permit each country to naturalize the other country's citizens, the treaty contained the provision;
ARTICLE V The United States of America and the Emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance  By treaty, Wong's parents, though not U.S. "citizens", nevertheless qualified as U.S. "nationals", owing allegiance to the U.S. exclusively and not owing allegiance to any foreign power.

U.S. citizen owes allegiance to the federal government
American citizen owes allegiance to his Republic state of the Union

U.S. citizens are 'citizens OF the UNITED STATES, U.S. citizens, U.S. Nationals, (8 U.S.C. 1101 (22)

American 'citizens' are 'American Nationals' (8 U.S.C. 1502, 8 U.S.C. 1101 (21), GPO style manual 5.23)

It is UNIVERSALLY recognized that YOU have the 'RIGHT to Elect' (choose) your nationality. They just forgot to teach you that part. Peace.