Senator Marco Rubio, please stand up!

Comments

Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired January 26, 2013 at 9:22pm

Delete Comment

"The 14th Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion, to Wong Kim Ark, Lynch v. Clarke, 8 USC 1401, and English Common Law. The 14th was designed to deal with the consequence of the Emancipation Proclamation, the end of the Civil War and the Thirteenth Amendment. There was no need to address "natural born" in the Fourteenth because it had already been addressed in Article 2 Section1 and English Common Law."...

Exactly Larry... the 14th Amendment doesn't speak directly to the question of 'Natural Born Citizen' hence quoting from it is frivolous debate. There are three (3) classes of citizens under US Law... Naturalized, Native, and Natural Born... all are citizen but all may not become President. No one is arguing that a naturalized citizen may be President... on the contrary. Gov. Arnold Swartzneger's (spelling) is a naturalized citizen and can not run for President... this is undisputed.

A native born citizen is one born on US soil... too a mixed marriage (one citizen and one non-citizen) or to parents who are in the US with legal permission to be in the US, or too two parents who are not US Citizens but are here with legal permission. Children born in the US under these circumstances are considered 'Native CItizens' by right of their LEGAL birth in America. This applies to the Kim Ark case.

However, one must met a much stricter test to be a 'Natural Born Citizen'... they must the Natural son or daughter of TWO US CITIZENS... Then by all laws of nature, their can be no contest, as to their citizenship or loyalty. Such children are thru and thru US Citizens. 'Natural Born' Citizens, naturally bestowed by right of birth to parents who are both Citizens of the USA. That is the definition of a Natural Born Citizen... Pres. Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen and if all the facts were known he may not be a Citizen at all.

There is substantial evidence to suggest that he attended Columbia University as a foreign student... there are problems with issues regarding his adoption by his step father and the subsequent relinquishing of any citizenship claim he may have had. There are official Indonesian documents that record his claims to being a citizen of Indonesia. There are US Passport records from his mothers files that suggest he was an Indonesian Citizen. There are affidavits from experts and members of the State of Hawaii vital statics bureau that raise very serious questions regarding the photo-copies of documents provided by Pres. Obama as proof of his birth in Hawaii... There are affidavits from his paternal mother testifying to his birth in Kenya... there are public records and recordings of the Kenyan interior minister claiming in an interview that Pres. Obama was born in Kenya. Early in President Obama's political career as a member of the Illinois legislature there are several local Illinois papers that taught Pres. Obama as being a native son of Africa... do I need to go further?

It is obvious that we need to have all this evidence put before Congress for a thorough review and public hearings.. and if it is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Pres. Obama is not a natural born citizen... he must be removed from office and every act, executive order, appointment, treaty, memorandum, etc. issued by him becomes null and void.

There has never been a fair hearing of the evidence by any court... every attempt to obtain a hearing on the evidence has been stonewalled or dismissed for lack of standing or some other administrative issues. It is time to put this issue before Congress as it should have been done over 4yrs ago... it is not going away. Let the facts fall where they may... but let's put this issue to rest one way or the other.

Senator Marco Rubio, please stand up!

RUBIO MUST DISQUALIFY HIMSELF FROM HIGH OFFICE. By J.B. Williams http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams234.htm January 20, 2013 If so-cal…
Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired January 26, 2013 at 8:15pm

8 uSC 1401 defines who shall be a CITIZEN... it doesn't touch on 'Natural Born Citizen' and neither did the 14th Amendment.

“Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define ‘natural born citizen.’ It simply clarified who was a ‘citizen.’ Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define natural born citizen, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment. But they didn’t.”
Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired January 26, 2013 at 7:20pm

Larry... I am getting tired of your selective memory... try this out:

Presidential eligibility. »

The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the US.

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“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.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define “natural born citizen”. It simply clarified who was a “citizen”. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define nbc, they would have used the words “natural born” in the Amendment. But they didn’t.

Do not allow the opposition to state this definition as “Vattel’s definition”. Challenge that tactic every time. Vattel didn’t make it up. His text on the law of nations compiled known existing law. Vattel was not a legislator.

It is proper to say, with regard to US Constitutional law, that this was the House definition as stated on the floor by Representative Bingham. And this definition was never opposed on the floor. And that is exactly where it should have been opposed if it were not the truth.

Debate upon issues of Constitutional law such as this belong on the House floor. And when an issue this important comes before the nation on the floor of “the people’s House”, and the issue is not challenged by any Representative of the people, then it’s certainly proper to infer that the House of Representatives, as a whole, agreed with that definition. After all, our nation is governed by debate on the floor of the House. But there never was debate on this issue because it was a proper statement of Constitutional law.

The definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens. It’s not like those cats were incapable of correcting each other’s mistakes. Since no Supreme Court case ever stated a different definition of “natural born citizen”, and no Represenative ever challenged Bingham on this point, the House definition stands and officially remains unchallenged as of today. If the House wants to change this definition, let them bring the issue to the floor now and properly debate it.

Until then, call it the House of Representatives definition as offered by the father of the 14th Amendment who was never challenged upon it.

Don’t let history be rewritten by propagandists. The evidence is mounting on a daily basis that the current Commander In Chief is not eligible to hold the office of President. You have a voice. You have freedom of speech. You have access to your federal and state representatives.

The courts don’t want to hear from you.

So find someone who must to listen to you and be heard. The Constitution cannot survive unless you breath life into it. We are responsible to future generations. Do something with that responsibility. Use the law. Obey the law. Respect the law. Fight for the law.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq. (hat tip to my main researcher who shall remain anonymous for now…)
Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired January 26, 2013 at 6:53pm

Larry...

We will have to agree to disagree and it appears that your point of view holds the greater weight with our government. So, we shall see, what comes with time. God forbid that men continue to ignore the facts of our past and rely on a 'New World Socialist Order' too define our future.

God Bless America...
Charles S Imwold January 26, 2013 at 5:10pm

For all you idiots out there that can't seem to get Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution I suggest you look up Dr. Herb Titus and watch his video on Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution . Dr. Herb Titus has a PHD from Harvard in US Constitutional law . And if that doesn't help, there is no help for you .
Irene Herring January 26, 2013 at 4:47pm

Rick, I am sorry. You are wrong...

The following discussion assumes President Obama was born in Hawaii and is a United States citizen.

The purpose of this article is to highlight judicial and historical evidence suggesting that a “natural born citizen” must be born in the United States to parents who are citizens. By that definition, Obama is not eligible to be president. Therefore, his presidency and official administrative acts remain subject to being rendered void by the Supreme Court.

The relevant Obama admission

At the official Obama campaign website – Fightthesmears.com – just below the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) – the following admission was also published:

When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

This was republished from a Factcheck.org, article which further stated:

In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

The constitutional question presented is whether a person born with citizenship in and allegiance to a foreign nation can be considered a “natural born citizen” of the United States as required by Article II, Section 1.

The U.S. State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual discusses problems associated with dual citizenship:

7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:

(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.

This helps explain why the definition of “natural born citizen” as one born in the nation to parents who are citizens makes perfect sense in that such a person will not be infected by dual-allegiance problems. If the parents are citizens, neither will confer allegiance to a foreign nation. Additionally, if one is born on soil foreign to the parents, that nation is likely to recognize the person as a citizen. Owing allegiance to more than one nation is an unnatural circumstance of citizenship.

While the Constitution requires representatives, senators and presidents to be citizens, Article II, Section 1, additionally requires that the president’s citizenship be “natural born.” A natural born citizen is not a higher level of citizen. “Natural born” simply describes a circumstance of citizenship.

Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: “The Question of Eligibility: Is Barack Obama’s presidency constitutionally legitimate?”

There are multiple circumstances that create “citizens at birth.” Some require a federal statute for citizenship while others rely on the 14th Amendment. Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to deem every person born in the United States a natural born citizen, they certainly could have included such plain, unequivocal language. But they didn’t.

In 1790, the first Congress deemed all persons born of two United States citizen parents abroad to be “natural born citizens,” but the words “natural born” were repealed in 1795. Congress never again legislated the definition of “natural born citizen,” and no United States statute currently defines the term or even mentions it.

The citizenship of a person born in the United States to parents who are citizens is self-evident and has never required naturalization, a federal statute or an amendment, and the Supreme Court has indicated that such persons are the only citizens who satisfy the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1.

Origin of the natural born citizen clause

The strict constitutional requirements were enacted to exclude citizens for the sake of national security in safeguarding the office from inexperience and from persons who may not have sole allegiance. It appears the clause was first introduced for constitutional consideration in a letter from John Jay to George Washington dated July 25, 1787:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Jay underlined “born” which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth. The “natural born” requirement renders irrelevant that a person – born to foreign or dual allegiance – may not have renewed his foreign citizenship upon reaching maturity. One is either eligible to be president at birth, or one will never be eligible.

An important historical definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a 1797 translation of the “Law of Nations,” a 1758 text by Emerich de Vattel, which summarized that body of international law known also as the “Law of Nations”:

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Note that a child of former aliens can be a natural born citizen under this standard if born in the United States to parents who were naturalized prior to the child’s birth. That was made clear by the Supreme Court’s opinion in Perkins v. Elg.

It appears from James Madison’s notes of August 1787 that the delegates used the terms “native” and “natural born citizen” synonymously. Additionally, Ben Franklin stated that the framers frequently consulted Vattel’s text. Also consider that Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the authority to “punish … offenses against the Law of Nations.”

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. …”

Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text. The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. …

It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born.

If Obama had run for president in 1874 – six years after the 14th Amendment went into effect – he wouldn’t have been eligible since he doesn’t fit the Minor Court’s standard for a natural born citizen.

The strange case of Chester Arthur

The holding in Minor v. Happersett must have given Chester Arthur nightmares when he ran for vice president in 1880, six years after Minor. Arthur, a prominent New York lawyer, managed to conceal from public view that his father didn’t become a naturalized citizen until 14 years after he was born. Therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth.

Arthur’s deception in concealing this fact involved numerous lies to the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper concerning his father’s heritage, immigration and age. He also quite famously burned most of his papers and lied about his own age.

Historical records bear witness that this issue was never discussed in relation to Chester Arthur’s eligibility until recently. Helping to cloud the issue all these years was a famous conspiracy theory expounded by a New York lawyer named Arthur Hinman who alleged Chester Arthur was born in Canada and was therefore not eligible. This sensational and unfounded conspiracy theory took the spotlight and unfortunately provided a smokescreen to conceal the true eligibility defect.

Chester Arthur is the only president prior to Obama who – after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, expired – was not born in the United States of two citizen parents. As such, Obama supporters have sought to use Chester Arthur as precedent for justifying Obama’s eligibility. Such reliance is unfounded because it wasn’t known at the time Chester Arthur held office that he was born with dual nationality. That this was concealed from the general public is confirmed by two important law review articles.

In the September/October 1884 issue of The American Law Review, George C. Collins discussed the citizenship status of persons born on U.S. soil to foreign parents. In the concluding paragraph, Collins stated:

Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.

It’s ridiculous to imagine the sitting president wouldn’t be mentioned when the article concerns the issue of whether a person born of an alien father is even a United States citizen.

Chester Arthur’s true eligibility defect doesn’t appear to have been mentioned in any historical record until December 2008 when it was exposed at my blog. Clearly, Chester Arthur’s deception cannot serve to validate anyone’s presidential eligibility. He got away with it, but that doesn’t make it right.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In 1898, Justice Horace Gray wrote one of the most controversial opinions in Supreme Court history wherein a man born in the United States of Chinese alien parents was held to be a citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the precedent relied upon for the assertion that any person born on United States soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. But that’s not accurate. The holding in Wong Kim Ark appears to require for citizenship that a person be born on United States soil to parents who are permanently domiciled here. If the domicile requirement is upheld in future cases, anchor babies will no longer be assumed to be United States citizens.

Regardless, the holding in Wong Kim Ark did not state that such a citizen was “natural born.” In fact, Justice Gray reiterated the definition of natural born citizen as one born on United States soil to parents who are citizens when he favorably discussed Minor v. Happersett:

That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. … At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens. …”

While the dissent feared the majority holding would make Wong Kim Ark eligible to be president, Justice Gray’s restatement of the Minor Court’s definition of a natural born citizen as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens stands in direct contrast to the dissent’s fear.

A few years after Wong Kim Ark was decided, the Albany Law Journal published an article by Alexander Porter Morse entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.

The term “native born citizen” has been erroneously substituted for “natural born citizen” by numerous commentators. Mr. Morse correctly points out that the two are not synonymous. His article also proves once again that Chester Arthur’s dual nationality was hidden from the public. There would have been no point in writing the article – which doesn’t mention Chester Arthur – had the nation previously condoned a president born with dual allegiance.

The argument against Obama being eligible rests on multiple Supreme Court cases that define a “natural born citizen” as one born in the United States to parents who are citizens. This is not a political issue. It’s a legal issue faced by a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law. As such, it deserves judicial review.

[For the most comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term "natural born Citizen," I strongly recommend, “What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?” by John Greschak.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/04/134881/#EQeRw8uwGbKO6Bo1.99

Views: 3
Diane Logan January 26, 2013 at 4:26pm

Larry, once again you mix and match what is natural to naturalized.

Col. Nelson, you might well be a reincarnation of one of our founders if I believed in such a thing but you surely do express yourself in their favor. Thank You.
Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired January 26, 2013 at 4:17pm

Larry...

You are correct regarding the 14th Amendment and anchor babies I don't disagree with your point... perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was complaining about the Supreme Court using the 14th Amendment and it's " all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" too extend citizenship to children born in the US whose parents are here illegally... I contend as did the framers of the 14th Amendment that illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the Constitution or our laws... except as apply to their criminal trespass and criminal conduct. They are not to be extend equal protection under the laws of the US as they are not CITIZENS.

I also maintain that 'natural law' the foundation for most of our common law... clearly denies citizenship too the children of illegal aliens. Historically the citizenship of ones children is determined by the parents... and more directly the father. A child derives it's protections under the law thru its parents not the state. Any court decision that applies the law otherwise is in err and has engaged in judicial activism. Congress needs to pass a resolution to clarify the original intent of the 14th... that jurisdiction is restricted to those freed slaves and native American Indians who found themselves potentially disenfranchised from citizenship... by including them as being under the jurisdiction of the US... and therefore entitled to Citizenship in the US.

I also agree with you regarding the children of illegals being required to go thru a naturalization process once they are legally present in this country... having legal alien resident status just as any other legal immigrant must do. Providing the children of illegal aliens legal status by right of their birth is inappropriate and prejudicial to the good order and application of our immigration and naturalization law.

It has also been suggested that illegal alien parents somehow derive the right too remain in the US, based on the erroneous application of citizenship rights granted to their children. This again goes contrary to 'natural law' which has always maintained that a child derives their legal status and protections from the parents... this includes citizenship and the laws of the social order.

I hope you are not suggesting that every decision made by the US Supreme court should be blindly followed or accepted as the last word on the Constitution. In spite of what the legal profession would have us believe the final arbiters of the Constitution are the people and the people's house... is the found in Congress.

It is time for Congress to use their Constitutional powers to restrain the Courts... too, impeach activist judges by the truck load and to rewrite the "Federal Judiciary Act''... reauthorizing the entire federal courts system... at the same time redistricting the federal court and appointing or reappointing every judge in the system (cleaning house in the judicial system.) That should send a clear message on who has the final word on the Constitution and what it says or means.
Paul Z. January 26, 2013 at 3:16pm

TODAY, Obama and the Democrats under Super Liberal Dem. Luis Guiterrez, started their (immigration reform), and BO said it will contain a "pathway to Citizenship. I suggest we ALL phone our Senators and Congressmen to stop this. That is how we had stopped this several times in the past. I phoned mine today, they are closed but I could still leave a message. Tell them that if they are really serious about any type of "immigration" (trespassing) reform, then why haven't they fully secured our border & passed Mandatory E-verify. Until these are done and well in place FIRST, no discussions. Republicans have to quit trying to negotiate with these one-way Liberals and state firmly, Enforcement FIRST, then we will discuss reform. Please call NOW...........
Ronald A. Nelson COL, USA, Retired January 26, 2013 at 1:29pm

Anchor babies are not citizens... the 14th Amendment was never intended to sanction citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. By statutory law an illegal immigrant is not protected or subject to the jurisdiction of our Constitution, it's benefits and protections. They are however subject to the criminal statues of the US as are any visitors legal or illegal.

The 14th Amendment was not intended too be interpreted as granting citizenship by right of birth alone... In fact, a review of the Congressional Debates and civil discourse of the day... clearly indicates they discussed the issue of children born to parents illegally in the country, and for those visiting or stationed as diplomats or dignitaries/businessmen of foreign countries.. They agreed that the wording and intent of the 14th to exclude children born to parents here illegally or in a temporary status (non-resident aliens) would not be entitled to US Citizenship.

However, by CORRUPTION of LAW and Judicial ACTIVISM the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment has been skewed and twisted in order to extend citizenship to the children of felons... illegal aliens in our nation. The act of criminal trespass, identity, tax and banking fraud are generally being committed by every illegal alien in the country...in one form or another. Therefore, these 'felons' don't need to be rewarded with amnesty they need to be prosecuted, convicted, and then deported ... never to be allowed to return under any circumstances.

We are the only Nation on earth that permits the wholesale abuse of its immigration laws... the only one where the chief executive has issued executive orders designed to subvert the immigration and identity laws... among others. This must stop. The government agents and employers that are aiding and abetting illegal alien trafficking arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law... not rewarded with illegal alien votes or their cheap labor.

of 14

Comments

The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of citizen “parents” in the US.