Brooklyn Eagle

Dec 20, 1891;

Page: 17

The writer above implies that a condition of naturalization or intent of permanence by immigration to the USA upon the parents of the child applies as to whether we will call a child born on US soil simply a citizen by Law, or a natural born citizen by both Law and Birth. In the late 1800s, the use of the phrase foreign born was often used dually to imply immigrants who had naturalized to the United States with the right to vote hence, by Law were US Citizens.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, November 16, 1864, Page 2, Column 1

Understood in the context of this period of US History, and how that the Eagle called those ³naturalizing´ from other countries, but having naturalized and joined the body politic of the United States legally, regularly calling them as ³foreigners´ also«by understanding this double usage of the day, we can then understand the abbreviated passages by the Eagle in the context by which those at the Eagle had presented that context to its readers. All in all, the Eagle was a snapshot in time as to the attitudes and understandings (including opinions) of the Constitution and US Law in its day. Thus, as the December 20, 1891 article states, so it is understood, that if a foreign father begets a child here in the United States, and has no intention of staying, and is only visiting as either a tourist or as a transient alien« such as being a ³student´«then the child is NOT a United States ³natural born citizen´, but merely a ³citizen´ of multi-national legiences which happened to include the United States as one of those legiences. The natural born status places the emphasis on birth to parents, with the Law of the Nations focusing on the seed of that which was planted«like a breadfruit tree seedling not native to the US or Mexico being planted there by a merchant sailor recently from Tahiti, or such a locale. It is only when the tree reproduces in the soil, that it becomes native. If the seed is the father, and the soil is the mother (allegorically), then only when the seedling grows and reproduces in the new country will those breadfruit trees become ³natural born´ by adjoining itself to a new native soil in the same way that an immigrating citizen father joins a body politic and makes his child a son of the soil of the new country. Since Barack Obama¶s father never joined the body politic of the United States as a citizen, never voted in our election, was not subject to our income taxes, nor swore legience to the United States, it was if he had never been ³planted´ here, but merely passed through with the same unattachment as a shipped good or commodity passing through. That good or commodity would not thus be stated to have originated in the USA, but merely passed through much like a tourist. Then, in the case of Barack, that as long as his mother was married to a foreigner, instead of being single when she had him, there was a temporary (albeit retrievable) transference of her citizenship to the State or Nation of her new husband. Thus, even if she divorced, her children are ensured the nationality of the father as pre-eminent over that of the mother (cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 1961).

Again, the child follows the legiences of the father for his natural born status. Barack Hussein Obama I never naturalized to the US, but retained his Kenyan and British Commonwealth citizen status. And even if though born in the legience of another nation than that of his father, the child of Barack Hussein Obama I (in the person of Barack Hussein Obama II) does NOT become a ³natural born citizen´ is a nation alien to the citizenship of his father«he merely becomes a dual citizen, whose citizenship is ³inclusive´ of that foreign birth. Hence, Barack Obama is Constitutionally unqualified and Constitutionally unfit for the Presidency of the United States of America. - - Brianroy

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful