From the 14th Amendment:
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.
Children born on U.S. soil to parents who are foreign tourists should NOT be given U.S. citizenship! While they meet the “born in the U.S.” condition, they do NOT meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” condition, and they do not “reside” in any State.
We need to put an end to “birthright citizenship”. Just being born on U.S. soil is not sufficient for U.S. citizenship. If both parents are citizens, then yes, that child is a U.S. citizen (a natural born citizen). If both parents are not U.S. citizens, we must look at whether or not the parents and the child are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States. In the case of tourists, it is clear they are not. In the case where one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other is not, I think that frequently leads to the scenario of “dual citizen”, where the child is a both a U.S. citizen and a subject/citizen of a foreign country (that of the other parent). Such a child is a citizen, but not a natural born citizen, of the U.S.
I Took The Red Pill 
Right! America already has a major problem with what may be a “wet foot dry foot” citizen with a Kenyan pedigree.
“Birth Tourism”, AKA “Anchor Babies”. I recently read (somewhere???) that the Muslim world 1.57 billion of them was waiting for the Turks to take the lead (after restoring the Ottoman Empire) in global Jihad. Seems Turkey has a population such as could quickly become Birth Terrorism. There were 73,914,260 Turks as of 2008, 98% Muslim. An example would be like the anchor babies born to women who came here illegally from Mexico for the purpose of delivering their babies. The new born is automatically a citizen and the mother seems to be entitled to stay with that baby. She in turn applies for citizenship and brings her husband, her aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, cousins and dogs.
Just look at the damage this version of a president, who is half american and half something else, has done to our nation in a little less than 15 months. There is the possibility that America, just like the Old Roman Empire, will be destroyed from within instead of from without by simply absorbing our enemies and allowing them to govern.
I would prefer to see a little twist on the Birthright Citizenship issue. Offer birthright citizenship to the anchor baby, but axe the parent’s entitlement to stay. The mother has a choice: either make proper arrangements for the baby to be raised in the US (with standards being at least middle-class and either familial relative or qualified adoption family), or take the baby with her as she is being deported.
Remove the anchor from the baby. She finds herself raising her little anchor back in Mexico.
Anchor Babies are Citizenship Fraud.
Birthright Citizenship cannot be bestowed on anyone. It is like the digital TV signal. Either you get it or you don’t. There is no snow, no static, nothing. There is no in-between. A person is either a citizen or he/she is not. Anchor babies are indeed “Citizenship Fraud”. You are absolutely correct , Aaron.
Yes, Mr. Pill, you are correct. I wrote this piece on the subject and how it relates to Obama’s eligibility here:
Note, too, that back in 2008 the “Fight the Smears” web site (paid for by “Obama for America”), claimed the following:
June 2008
http://web.archive.org/web/20080614132523/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
Archived to: http://www.webcitation.org/5vYudTgWu
July 2008
http://web.archive.org/web/20080731085031/my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert
Archived to: http://www.webcitation.org/5vYvZO9r0
You’ll note that what was posted then is different from what is posted now…
Today (Jan 2011)
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
http://www.webcitation.org/5vYveHuaJ
Note that they admit that the man claimed as Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That man was not permanently domiciled in the United States, so it the ruling in Wong Kim Ark (which ruled Wong Kim Ark a citizen, not a “natural born citizen”) is not applicable to Obama. Wong Kim Ark’s parents were both permanently domiciled in the United States. Obama’s parents were not.
And, note that the current version of the “Fight the Smears” site goes on to say:
That same act [the British Nationality Act of 1948] governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Again, the larger quote:
Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject. So was his son.
Barack Hussein Obama II was born a British subject.
Barack Hussein Obama II was born a subject of a foreign nation.
At the time of the passing of the 14th Amendment, it was understood at the time to mean, quoting then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull, “not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”
The 14th Amendment does NOT apply to Obama…
… and you’ll note that they no longer refer to the 14th Amendment on the “Fight the Smears” web site. They can try to scrub the site, but they can’t scrub the archives.
If the “Obama birth narrative” is true, then he was not born a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America.
The only way for Obama to have been born a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America would be if the “Obama birth narrative” is not true. And if the “Obama birth narrative” is not true, then he is guilty of forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.
So, either way, he is not eligible to hold the office of President.
He’s either a usurper or he’s guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.
CNN distorts again…
Wrong.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states:
If someone is subject to the jurisdiction of another country, they may not meet the “AND” requirement.
A child born to one foreign citizen parent and one U.S. citizen parent may have dual citizenship, but a child born to two foreign citizen parents on U.S. soil is subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ country(ies) and should not be given “birthright citizenship”.
CNN “Senior Legal Analyst” Jeffrey Toobin recently gave a clearly false description of Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”.
Leo Donofrio corrects CNN’s error and sets the record straight…
The latest from attorney Mario Apuzzo: