Replies

Do they not teach English grammar anymore?

Indeed and after you go back to school and learn it, get back to me.

Then go back and read it again. For those of you in Rio Linda the 14ths says:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

If, as you suggest, they only meant diplomats, it would have read:

No if that was their intent it would have read:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, OR (those) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

The very first sentence makes it clear that “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. It then makes an exception for the children who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States. Why you ask? Well because the ambassadors or foreign ministers are not subject to US jurisdiction. Likewise the children of US ambassadors or foreign ministers born overseas while their parent(s) are serving abroad is not subject to that country’s jurisdiction. In other words, if my father or mother was a US diplomat or a member of the US armed forces serving abroad when I was born, I would be a US citizen at birth and the physical country of my birth would not convey to me citizenship of that country.

In this case the comma is confusing to those who don’t understand its proper usage but in this case the statement before the comma is qualified by the statement after the comma. In this case the comma does not separate two distinctly separate thoughts or ideas but makes a statement about “person born who are foreigners, aliens” but then further qualifies them, the former as those “who belong to the families of…

If what you and other birthers claim to be true regarding citizenship, then my older brother would not be a US citizen, even though he was born here because my father was not yet at the time of my brother’s birth a “naturalized” citizen. Never mind that my father was a legal US resident from the age of 6 and served in the US Army infantry during WWII after being drafted by the US government, with no choice of refusing and was clearly “subject to (their) jurisdiction” as was my brother from the moment of his birth. If you and other birthers were correct, that would also mean that my brother would have had to undergo some sort of legal “naturalization” proceeding and process after his birth, which of course he didn’t. My brother was never under the jurisdiction of my father’s country of birth – Norway. Norway never claimed my brother as a Norwegian citizen because of it being his father’s place of birth. My brother could have never broken any US or state law and claimed any sort of diplomatic immunity.