Earlier in the week, I brought back an article by Leo to refresh the readers memories and to also educate new readers as to the importance that there shall be “NO” foreign influence on the office of the Executive. Today I do the same.

Let’s talk ‘subject to the jusrisdiction thereof’ and its relevance to US citizenship & naturalization/immigration laws and… 

“Where did it all go wrong?”

 In 1895, after answering Hinman’s letterregarding the ineligibility of Chester Arthur, Thomas F. Bayard who was then Sec. of State under Grover Cleveland, finally made a formal ruling on the subject of children born in the US to foreigners:

In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ “.

Leo’s article goes on to state the irrefutable facts of this significant ruling as it pertains to Obama:

It’s important we note Bayard’s concern that the German subject was, “on his birth subject to a foreign power“.  That’s the key.  “On his birth”, Chester Arthur was born subject to a foreign power.  “On his birth”, Barack Obama was born subject to a foreign power.  Also, this official ruling concerned only the issue of whether the person was a “citizen” of the US, never mind “natural born”.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution  requires that the President be a natural borncitizen.  The word “born” refers to the status of the President at the time of his birth, not any other time.  Barack Obama and Chester Arthur were born to fathers who were not US citizens at the time each was born.  Therefore, neither Obama nor Arthur should legally be President under the Constitution.

Here is the full “The ‘Nation” article regarding Hinman’s original request of clarification as it was originally printed in 1894, “A question of Citizenship” begins on page 134 of “The Nation” (pg 3 of the scribd doc)