Thursday, October 23, 2008

Birthright Citizenship equals Natural Born Citizenship

What is "natural born" citizenship anyway? Are "birthright citizenship" and "natural born citizenship" one and the same things? Apparently to some Americans they are.

Birthright citizenship is, of course, the idea that originates from the fourteenth amendment citizenship clause:

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.

Wikipedia gets down to where the rubber meets the road on birthright citizenship:

When accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, a newborn's status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father. (italics added)

Quite so. But as bad and self-destructive as this is, carried to its logical conclusion, let me add that birthright citizenship, once conferred upon such a newborn, and under our current system and definition of "birthright citizenship", can never be revoked so long as they both (the U.S. and the birthright citizen) shall live short of the individual himself formally renouncing his U.S. citizenship, and/or, on proof of treason against the United States.

Additionally there is the little issue of the legality/illegality of the parents of the birthright citizen in question. If you're incapable of following that train to the caboose, I'm afraid there's likely not a whole lot of hope for you.

In his appearance on Meet the Press last Sunday, Colin Powell asked the following, obviously intended as a rhetorical question: "Is there something wrong with a seven year old Muslim kid believing he or she can one day become president?" We all know what the PC answer is, and we now know what Colin Powell's opinion on the matter is -- such an America Powell wants nothing to do with. Notwithstanding that, the non-PC answer is an emphatic YES!, there is something, indeed everything wrong with a Muslim child believing he can one day become president of the United States of America, a Western nation founded on Judeo-Christian values by White European Protestant Christians. But the hard fact of the matter is nonetheless this, liberal dominance has introduced into this country a system of immigration and naturalization by which our mortal enemies can effect a hostile takeover of our country by foreign mercenaries without a shot ever being fired. Indeed, by and with the aid of liberals and liberalism. I.e., birthright citizenship, which is to say "natural born" citizenship.

When Hamilton wrote in Federalist no. 46 that "the Convention have guarded against all danger of this sort...", by which he intended the raising of a foreign "creature of their own" to the presidency, he was working from the original constitution, not that watered-down leftist version we have now. The blatantly stupid and illegitimate concept of "birthright citizenship" would have never even occured, as more than a passing and laughable thought, to our founding fathers and their generation. But as I've pointed out so many times before, WE (heavy on the WE) "hold these truths to be self-evident," and WE (heavy again on the WE) "THE PEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect union," etc., refers not to us, but to them; their generation, unless and until WE, meaning us, formally assert the truths contained therein as our fathers did.

There is some question as to Barack Hussein Obama's, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro's U.S. citizenship status. So far as I'm aware he's never produced a certified copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate to anyone, anywhere, including the courts. If the document really exists, then why not simply produce it and end all the confusion, the speculation, and the ongoing legal battle? The copy which his people have posted at his website is extremely questionable as far as I'm concerned. I was born in 1965, four years after Barack Obama's birth, and my California birth certificate bears not even the slightest resemblance to Obama's alleged Hawaiian birth certificate posted on the site. The certificate posted there is very modern looking, more resembling a modern title to an automobile than a genuine birth certificate of the era. Moreover, anyone slightly more computer savvy than I am could easily produce such a forgery bearing whatever name they chose to put on it. Indeed, I think I could even do it, computer illiterate that I am, if I put my mind to it. And it's striking how very little information is on the document, whereas my birth certificate is, by comparison to the alleged Obama birth certificate, loaded with information relevant to my birth.

What I should like to see is an example of a Hawaiian birth certificate c. 1961, the year of Obama's birth. Let us compare the two documents.

But to me this issue of birthright citizenship -- which amounts to nothing more than simply being born on American soil -- equalling natural born citizenship must be dealt with post haste. It is the height of stupidity to say that the mere fact of ones birth on American soil, in spite of everything else that is relevant, satisfies the Constitutional prerequisite of natural born citizenship establishing permanent eligibility for holding the highest office in the land. If this is what U.S. law reflects, then U.S. law on this question of natural born citizenship must be completely overhauled, again, post haste.