by Leonard Daneman, paraleaglenm, ©2024
(Dec. 10, 2024) — As I’ve written now for 36 years, ‘birthright citizenship’ didn’t start with the 14th Amendment (1866-1869) but the Wong Kim Ark case (1898).
The data is carefully researched. While the bible instructs us that ‘in many words there is indiscretion,’ I have worked very hard to check and recheck so no critical errors exist undermining the substantive work. The research is open to any writer, journalist, or law student. Proverbs 10:19
The Chinese were a major influence in San Francisco and California; thanks to immigration, their work ethic, and ease of access to the California gold fields. However, due to the insurrmountable challenges of religion, language, and culture, the U.S. government agreed to a treaty and statutes excluding the Chinese from citizenship application.
The Burlingame Treaty of 1868 was approved by the Chinese Emperor, jealous of his people; and their allegiance was his to hold without reservation.
It is still this way today. The Chinese Communist Party has infiltrated the U.S. Chinese community and has made it clear that all of Chinese descent still owe allegiance, and if asked must perform acts of espionage and intellectual property theft.
When a 22-year old Chinese cook sued for ‘native born’ citizenship, he was backed by the Chinese Merchants’ Association (The Tong). I have no proof of this, but look at the results. Once the U.S. Supreme Court changed naturalization law to benefit Wong, the Chinese suddenly became a powerful voting block.
Today, the Democrats are abusing Wong’s birthright citizenship case to overwhelm the states with indigent, stressing hospitals and social services. They have become a large enough voting block, thanks to NO ID Sanctuary States and Ballot Harvesting, to flip national elections. Counted in the census, they give Democrats at least an 8 Elector headstart in every federal election.
Back in the 1700’s, the colonies were under British rule and any British loyalist having children produced British ‘natural born subjects.’ However, when the the U.S. constitution was ‘adopted,’ ratifying a federation of states, children born on U.S. soil became a natural born citizen of that state–but with one caveat: the father had to have declared himself allegiant to the United States. Any British loyalists still in the U.S. did not bear U.S. citizen children, but under the 1772 British Nationality Act bore natural born British subjects. This undermines Justice Gray’s reasoning in the Wong Kim Ark case.
The proof is in Article II’s presidential requirements. The child had to have been born to a U.S. citizen father naturalized by the father’s change in allegiance to the newly adopted constitution, or a ‘natural born citizen,’ i.e., born to a U.S. citizen father. And the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 did not require a hint of ‘born in the United States;’ as those born on foreign soil were ‘as natural born citizens;’ same rules as the British followed.
So, those lawmakers and philosophers who claimed ‘common law’ of England and ‘place of birth’ (jus soli) was the fundamental principle of nationality and allegiance failed to understand whatever law they read, be it Blackstone or even going back to Emerich de Vattel. Because even under a lordship’s iron claim over his feudal villages and ‘villains’ born within owing him their undying allegiance, that demand did not apply to ‘sojourners,’ travelers from foriegn climes.
This simplifies the matter, but the research and proof I’ve written since personally speaking up in 2008, challenging Barack Obama’s claim to being an Article II Natural Born Citizen, is linked below:
Blackstone himself proves that the colonies where not held to born of land. In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, section the third of the laws of England he states that English common law did have authority.
“OUR American plantations are principally of this latter fort, being obtained in the laft century either by right of conqueft and driving out the natives (with what natural juftice I fhall not at prefent enquire) or by treaties. And therefore the common law of England, as fuch, has no allowance or authority there ; they being no part of the mother country, but diftinct (though dependent) dominions. They are fubject however to the control of the parliament ; though (like Ireland, Man, and the reft ) not bound by any acts of parliament, unlefs particularly named.”
Which is why in the early colonial charters state that they were outside the dominions of the crown.
Virginia charter 1606
Also we do, for Us, our Heirs, and Successors, DECLARE, by these Presents, that all and every the Persons being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies and Plantations, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or any other of our said Dominions.
So Blackstone understood that the colonies outside the dominion made their own laws that were necessary, common law had no authority, and that status was obtained from Subject to child.
Great article, thank you and keep pushing the truth to the front.
It is simpler than 2+2=4. If it took a law to make you a citizen you are not natural born.
Natural born has obviously the same rank and independence as ‘inalienable’ God-given rights does in the DoI. Emmerich de Vattel’s 1758 ‘The Law of Nations’ spells this concept of citizenship out. The Framers did not come up with it on their own: they borrowed de Vattel’s concept of natural born. It was put into the Constitution to protect against foreign influence. Everyone knew what it meant then. Now? Ignored. Franklin had enthusiastically distributed copies of the translated book to the Constitutional Convention delegates. And the rest is unreviewed history.
Just solis is the abusive means of claiming citizenship; just sanguinis is by far the most common measure of loyalty-driven citizenship in the western world. Not natural born list: Obama, Rubio, Cruz, Gabbard, Harris.
If you believe in jus solis, you have to allow for the king of GB&I, if born on US soil or military installation overseas, could become President of the United States. Illogical and unconstitutional.
I sent a lot of letters, faxes and emails, and made phone calls to Congress on the issue of Obama’s eligibility, years ago. I was told that Obama was eligible and nothing would change the Congressman’s mind. It was useless to contact members of Congress because they had been told by Nancy Pelosi that Obama was eligible, and later they were given a document written by The Congressional Research Service at the request of Pelosi, which ostensibly “proved” Obama was eligible, and helped Congress to keep their responses (lies) to their constituent’s wrong, but uniform.
Congress did what they were told. Congress, both parties knew Obama was a “Muslim plant”, but decided nothing would be done about it. They backed themselves in a corner they could not get out of unless they admitted they committed treason when they gave America’s Government and her Military to her enemies via Barack Hussein Obama. That meant from that time until and including now, members of Congress have been and still are protectors of Obama……to protect themselves. The original 16 year plan was to follow 8 years of Obama with 8 of Hillary Clinton as the after Obama cover president. When Hillary lost in 2016 to both parties worse nightmare, Donald Trump, both parties became complicit in trying to remove Trump from office as quickly as possible. The tried Russia, Russia, Russia, lies and they tried impeachment and the Mueller investigation. Nothing worked so they, the “UniParty”, stole the 2020 election.
After Obama’s pulling the strings of his Puppet, Joe Biden, and Trump now set to be President again in 2025, the same panic as in 2016 has reoccurred, only much more severely as Trump won again. Trump is now President-elect, and this time Trump is much more knowledgeable of what he will be greeted with as President, and ready to take it on. The possibility of getting Congress to admit they know Obama is ineligible and instead of stopping him from being sworn-in did nothing except protect Obama right up until today is unlikely, because they would be admitting they committed, treason, the kind that can be punished by hanging and for which there is no statute of limitation.. The Supreme Court will also continue to “evade the issue” because Chief Justice John Roberts swore-in the fraud Obama, several times. Roberts swearing- in Obama was like “certifying” Obama’s eligibility to many other people, including judges. A crime too big to prosecute was committed, and the cover-up continues…….
I agree that even now, sending a letter to your Congress person would be a good thing, but you won’t like your reply, if you get one. They are all in this too deep to reveal themselves and possibly be charged with treason….
Donald Trump must be keep safe, because he is likely America’s last, last chance to be Great Again……
Trump’s presidency is the “End Game” for us lovers of the Constitution, and with this new-fangled electronic spying, this is the last chance for our Republic to stand as the “Beacon of Freedom” for the world.
Last chance so this hesitation to support Trump’s picks for his administration doesn’t cut it.
I think writing to your representatives is a good idea, call them, too.
A call, fax, letter or email won’t hurt. I did that often for about 8 years…..
Bob68+, great summation of the Obama Fraud! Too bad that pathetically few, or no one at all, in our government listened. My opinion is that Barack Hussein Obama (or whoever and whatever he is) and our CIA (who “discovered” him and made him one of them or even worse) committed the greatest crime against the United States in our history! But, Bob68+, as you imply, who seems to care or to be able to do anything about it at this late date. Amen. For now may God Bless America and help President Trump and his administration to Make America Great Again. Tom A.
Limbaugh did not want to know, Buck Sexton does not want to know. I know a close relative who wrote to MTG to see if she could take this up in Congress.
It needs not be taken up – just acknowledged for what it is: what the Founders knew what it is. We know this as: at the time of birth both of your parents were citizens and you were born on US soil or on a US military base outside the country. [See McCain.]
They Left tried to make a deal out of Trump’s mother’s Scot origin. So what? She was a US citizen when Trump was born. Left is lame.
Obama’s issued birth certificate was a forgery. How? Signatures never match, but the one on his perfectly matches that of a contemporary document. Copy/paste. Plus his birth certificate used fonts that did not exist in the early 1960s.
Regardless, his father was always a British or Kenyan citizen. Fails on jus sanguinis.
Pelosi is hardly a disinterested judge of the matter. People are willfully ignorant or evil.
Thank you for the considered reply to my original post.
Point well made, ‘if it took a law,’ i.e., naturalization law.
One judge, without jurisdiction, declared Obama a ‘natural born citizen’ because he was not naturalized but a ‘citizen at birth.’ His reasoning was children do not take oaths of allegiance as specified in naturalization law . . . so, not naturalized. However, a child is naturalized as a minor whose father/parents naturalize. So, the judged didn’t take time and effort to test his assumption.
I approached the issue by making up a word, ‘de-alienage.’ If the minor child had foreign nationality through his parents, that alienage had to be removed and replaced by U.S. nationality. It was naturalization law that specified how that foreign nationality was removed. Therefore, ‘natural-ized.’
Obama admitted he had British/Kenyan nationality at birth. His father’s abandonment and failure to register the birth within a year with the British consulate automatically removed British nationality, and other statutes conferred the mother’s U.S. citizenship.
We are all on the same paragraph of the same page. Thanks for replying.