Originally posted by yeahright
If you can tell me how a person who is a "natural born citizen" is less inclined to "divided loyalties" than one who isn't, I'd love to see that
It seems to me that there's some sort of confusion between actual Birthright Citizenship & the 14th Amendment version of US citizenship & it starts
with a confusion of the actual lawful jurisdiction
Birthright Citizenship is what is the Common Law & the upholding of Natural Rights is all about, according to the State Constitution in effect in the
place of birth: US citizenship is defined wholly by the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment & establishing what US jurisdiction lawfully includes. The
US Cosntitution defines not only the limited Powers delegated to the US, but also the limit of US enforcement according to jurisdiction.
The States had already defined what constitutes State Citizenship (some merely require being resident for a certain time period, or specific location
of birth within State boundaries, etc. State Citizenship varies somewhat from State to State) even before
the US Constitution was ratified.
The Code of Federal Regulations & the Federal Register (which makes the explicit distinction between Natural Citizenship (with a captial "C")
compared to US citizenship (with a lower-case "c") can explain the limits of US jurisdiction better than I can here, but it boils down to
Possessions, Territories & Enclaves. Another, more thorough, explanation of the limits of US jurisdiction can be found
, at the Supreme Law Firm.
Possessions & Territories are specifically named to include (with no other specified expansions!) Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Philippine
Islands & the District of Columbia. US Enclaves consist solely of lands within State boundaries that have been lawfully ceded to the US, according to
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7
(to establish Post Roads) and Article 1, Section 8, Clause
17 (limited to 10 miles square & for specific purposes included therein). That's it! US jurisdiction is geographically limited to NOT include all
other land within State boundaries, as established within the State Constitutions!
Birthright Citizenship consists of a natural birth that is within State boundaries, but NOT within US boundaries. Birthright Citizenship is indeed a
lawful Right, whereas the 14th Amendment citizenship is a priviledge
granted by the US Government.
The confusion, I think, is that those who advocate repealing "birthright citizenship" from the US Constitution seem to confuse the difference
between the true Birthright Citizenship (by being born within State boundaries) with the Naturalized citizenship defined by the 14th Amendment...They
seem to think that the two different terms (that denote the differences in jurisdiction) as being interchangable, when they are distinctly different.
therefore, calling for the abolition of "birthright citizenship" is the (quite probably honest mistake) isn't possible because Birthright
Citizenship is a Right of Natural Law, not bestowed by the US government. They should instead be calling for the repeal of US citizenship instead,
because that is the "government-issued" priviledge & is tied with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" & can only uphold the Rights
within the 14th Amendment.
This is the reason why I originally said that calling for the repeal of Birthright Citizenship is a mistake.
The US Constitution specifically calls for all Federal & State level government employees to be US citizens...This is where divided loyalties comes
in. A person must contract or otherwise enter into an agreement to become an official US (14th Amendment) citizen: Dual (or multiple)-citizenships or
any other demonstratable loyalties to foreign organizations (such as the European-originated BAR Association for lawyers, for one example) cannot be
allowed. This disqualification appears specifically under the Titles & Nobilities Clause that I've mentioned before.
[edit on 16-8-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]