I think you know that Hamilton ...

You cannot use Hamilton as an authority. He wanted a king. He wanted things that nobody else agreed to. He formed the first central bank (controlled by the Rothschilds).

He was a puppet.

He was the original "Federalist," which really meant that he wanted a BIG government (like a monarchy), and not a small government, which is what the word "federalist" actually meant in those days.

This is why the real federalists called themselves the "Anti-Federalists," as a way to push back on Hamilton's deception.

... was referring to immigrated aliens ...

ALL of the founders, including Hamilton, conceived of other BRITISH (WHITE) people potentially immigrating to the new nation. When they wrote of "foreign aliens," this is who they were referencing. They did not want anyone who was secretly loyal to the King of England. They didn't even consider Mexicans, Indians, or Africans as possible citizens.

Indians were "other persons" and blacks were either slaves or "other persons."

That is the CONTEXT in which all their writings must be understood.

If one were to take "The parents had to be citizens to produce citizens by birth.

No. The parents had to be citizens for their children to be "NATURAL BORN citizens" at birth. ANY OTHER was not "natural born." It might be a citizenship at birth or a citizenship after birth, but in both of those cases those types of citizenship would be GRANTED by Congress in the Naturalization Act.

In the case where the Act gave automatic citizenship, there was no need to apply for citizenship. In the case where it was not automatic, it had to be applied for and approved.

ONLY in the case of citizen parents was the Naturalization Act ... NOT RELEVANT.

IF both parents were NOT citizens, THEN the Naturalization Act was relevant to determine if the child would have to apply for citizenship or be given it automatically.

If they were not citizens, then their children were not citizens." and birthright citizenship didn't exist, 'natural born citizens' would die off in a few generations and you'd be left with a vast majority of Naturalized citizens only.

No. There was an exception in the Constitution for the founding generation, since the USA did not exist when they were born.

After they were gone, then ONLY those who were born to citizen parents would be "natural born citizens," eligible for POTUS.

Anyone else was not a natural born citizen, and then the Naturalization Act, passed by Congress, would determine citizenship.

The 14th Amendment was passed so that the newly freed SLAVES could become citizens because their birth parents' citizenship were UNKNOWN. Often, their parents were also unknown.

WHY do you think it was passed in 1866?

It had nothing to do with the office of President, AND it has nothing to do with anchor babies.

The concept of "birthright citizenship" ... TODAY ... is NOT LAW. It was not then, and it is not today.

Today, it is ONLY A REGULATION, NOT A LAW.

It is "policy" to pretend that anchor babies are citizens. Congress NEVER passed a law to make it so.

The 14th Amendment says that any person who is (a) born on US soil, AND (b) SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US ... is a US citizen.

A child born on US soil to 2 Mexican parents is "subject to the jurisdiction of" ... MEXICO.

The slaves had no known documentation of ancestry, so the southern States would not allow them to be citizens. This is why the 14th was passed.

It wasn't until the 1960's that this was abused by those who want to subvert the law.

I think you know that Hamilton ...

You cannot use Hamilton as an authority. He wanted a king. He wanted things that nobody else agreed to. He formed the first central bank (controlled by the Rothschilds).

He was a puppet.

He was the original "Federalist," which really meant that he wanted a BIG government (like a monarchy), and not a small government, which is what the word "federalist" actually meant in those days.

This is why the real federalists called themselves the "Anti-Federalists," as a way to push back on Hamilton's deception.

... was referring to immigrated aliens ...

ALL of the founders, including Hamilton, conceived of other BRITISH (WHITE) people potentially immigrating to the new nation. When they wrote of "foreign aliens," this is who they were referencing. They did not want anyone who was secretly loyal to the King of England. They didn't even consider Mexicans, Indians, or Africans as possible citizens.

Indians were "other persons" and blacks were either slaves or "other persons."

That is the CONTEXT in which all their writings must be understood.

If one were to take "The parents had to be citizens to produce citizens by birth.

No. The parents had to be citizens for their children to be "NATURAL BORN citizens" at birth. ANY OTHER was not "natural born." It might be a citizenship at birth or a citizenship after birth, but in both of those cases those types of citizenship would be GRANTED by Congress in the Naturalization Act.

In the case where the Act gave automatic citizenship, there was no need to apply for citizenship. In the case where it was not automatic, it had to be applied for and approved.

ONLY in the case of citizen parents was the Naturalization Act ... NOT RELEVANT.

IF both parents were NOT citizens, THEN the Naturalization Act was relevant to determine if the child would have to apply for citizenship or be given it automatically.

If they were not citizens, then their children were not citizens." and birthright citizenship didn't exist, 'natural born citizens' would die off in a few generations and you'd be left with a vast majority of Naturalized citizens only.

No. There was an exception in the Constitution for the founding generation, since the USA did not exist when they were born.

After they were gone, then ONLY those who were born to citizen parents would be "natural born citizens," eligible for POTUS.

Anyone else was not a natural born citizen, and then the Naturalization Act, passed by Congress, would determine citizenship.

The 14th Amendment was passed so that the newly freed SLAVES could become citizens because their birth parents' citizenship were UNKNOWN. Often, their parents were also unknown.

WHY do you think it was passed in 1866?

It had nothing to do with the office of President, AND it has nothing to do with anchor babies.

The concept of "birthright citizenship" ... TODAY ... is NOT LAW. It was not then, and it is not today.

Today, it is ONLY A REGULATION, NOT A LAW.

It is "policy" to pretend that anchor babies are citizens. Congress NEVER passed a law to make it so.

The 14th Amendment says that any person who is (a) born on US soil, (b) AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US ... is a US citizen.

A child born on US soil to 2 Mexican parents is "subject to the jurisdiction of" ... MEXICO.

The slaves had no known documentation of ancestry, so the southern States would not allow them to be citizens. This is why the 14th was passed.

It wasn't until the 1960's that this was abused by those who want to subvert the law.

I think you know that Hamilton ...

You cannot use Hamilton as an authority. He wanted a king. He wanted things that nobody else agreed to. He formed the first central bank (controlled by the Rothschilds).

He was a puppet.

He was the original "Federalist," which really meant that he wanted a BIG government (like a monarchy), and not a small government, which is what the word "federalist" actually meant in those days.

This is why the real federalists called themselves the "Anti-Federalists," as a way to push back on Hamilton's deception.

... was referring to immigrated aliens ...

ALL of the founders, including Hamilton, conceived of other BRITISH (WHITE) people potentially immigrating to the new nation. When they wrote of "foreign aliens," this is who they were referencing. They did not want anyone who was secretly loyal to the King of England. They didn't even consider Mexicans, Indians, or Africans as possible citizens.

Indians were "other persons" and blacks were either slaves or "other persons."

That is the CONTEXT in which all their writings must be understood.

If one were to take "The parents had to be citizens to produce citizens by birth.

No. The parents had to be citizens for their children to be "NATURAL BORN citizens" at birth. ANY OTHER was not "natural born." It might be a citizenship at birth or a citizenship after birth, but in both of those cases those types of citizenship would be GRANTED by Congress in the Naturalization Act.

In the case where the Act gave automatic citizenship, there was no need to apply for citizenship. In the case where it was not automatic, it had to be applied for and approved.

ONLY in the case of citizen parents was the Naturalization Act ... NOT RELEVANT.

IF both parents were NOT citizens, THEN the Naturalization Act was relevant to determine if the child would have to apply for citizenship or be given it automatically.

If they were not citizens, then their children were not citizens." and birthright citizenship didn't exist, 'natural born citizens' would die off in a few generations and you'd be left with a vast majority of Naturalized citizens only.

No. There was an exception in the Constitution for the founding generation, since the USA did not exist when they were born.

After they were gone, then ONLY those who were born to citizen parents would be "natural born citizens," eligible for POTUS.

Anyone else was not a natural born citizen, and then the Naturalization Act, passed by Congress, would determine citizenship.

The 14th Amendment was passed so that the newly freed SLAVES could become citizens because their birth parents' citizenship were UNKNOWN. Often, their parents were also unknown.

WHY do you think it was passed in 1866?

It has nothing to do with the office of President, AND it has nothing to do with anchor babies.

The concept of "birthright citizenship" ... TODAY ... is NOT a LAW. It wasn't then and it is not today.

Today, it is ONLY A REGULATION, and NOT A LAW.

It is "policy" to pretend that anchor babies are citizens. Congress NEVER passed a law to make it so.

The 14th Amendment says that any person who is (a) born on US soil AND (b) SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US ... is a US citizen.

A child born on US soil to 2 Mexican parents is "subject to the jurisdiction of" ... MEXICO.

The slaves had no known documentation of ancestry, so the southern States would not allow them to be citizens. This is why the 14th was passed.

It wasn't until the 1960's that this was abused by those who want to subvert the law.

I think you know that Hamilton ...

You cannot use Hamilton as an authority. He wanted a king. He wanted things that nobody else agreed to. He formed the first central bank (controlled by the Rothschilds).

He was a puppet.

He was the original "Federalist," which really meant that he wanted a BIG government (like a monarchy), and not a small government, which is what the word "federalist" actually meant in those days.

This is why the real federalists called themselves the "Anti-Federalists," as a way to push back on Hamilton's deception.

... was referring to immigrated aliens ...

ALL of the founders, including Hamilton, conceived of other BRITISH (WHITE) people potentially immigrating to the new nation. When they wrote of "foreign aliens," this is who they were referencing. They did not want anyone who was secretly loyal to the King of England. They didn't even consider Mexicans, Indians, or Africans as possible citizens.

Indians were "other persons" and blacks were either slaves or "other persons."

That is the CONTEXT in which all their writings must be understood.

If one were to take "The parents had to be citizens to produce citizens by birth.

No. The parents has to be citizens for their children to be NATURAL BORN citizens at birth. ANY other citizenship was not "natural born." It might be a citizenship at birth or a citizenship after birth, but in both of those cases those types of citizenship would be GRANTED by Congress in the Naturalization Act.

In the case where the Act gave automatic citizenship, there was no need to apply for citizenship. In the case where it was not automatic, it had to be applied for and approved.

ONLY in the case of citizen parents was the Naturalization Act ... NOT RELEVANT.

IF both parents were NOT citizens, THEN the Naturalization Act was relevant to determine if the child would have to apply for citizenship or be given it automatically.

If they were not citizens, then their children were not citizens." and birthright citizenship didn't exist, 'natural born citizens' would die off in a few generations and you'd be left with a vast majority of Naturalized citizens only.

No. There was an exception in the Constitution for the founding generation, since the USA did not exist when they were born.

After they were gone, then ONLY those who were born to citizen parents would be "natural born citizens," eligible for POTUS.

Anyone else was not a natural born citizen, and then the Naturalization Act, passed by Congress, would determine citizenship.

The 14th Amendment was passed so that the newly freed SLAVES could become citizens because their birth parents' citizenship were UNKNOWN. Often, their parents were also unknown.

WHY do you think it was passed in 1866?

It has nothing to do with the office of President, AND it has nothing to do with anchor babies.

The concept of "birthright citizenship" ... TODAY ... is NOT a LAW. It wasn't then and it is not today.

Today, it is ONLY A REGULATION, and NOT A LAW.

It is "policy" to pretend that anchor babies are citizens. Congress NEVER passed a law to make it so.

The 14th Amendment says that any person who is (a) born on US soil AND (b) SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US ... is a US citizen.

A child born on US soil to 2 Mexican parents is "subject to the jurisdiction of" ... MEXICO.

The slaves had no known documentation of ancestry, so the southern States would not allow them to be citizens. This is why the 14th was passed.

It wasn't until the 1960's that this was abused by those who want to subvert the law.

I think you know that Hamilton ...

You cannot use Hamilton as an authority. He wanted a king. He wanted things that nobody else agreed to. He formed the first central bank (controlled by the Rothschilds).

He was a puppet.

He was the original "Federalist," which really meant that he wanted a BIG government (like a monarchy), and not a small government, which is what the word "federalist" actually meant in those days.

This is why the real federalists called themselves the "Anti-Federalists," as a way to push back on Hamilton's deception.

... was referring to immigrated aliens ...

ALL of the founders, including Hamilton, conceived of other BRITISH (WHITE) people potentially immigrating to the new nation. When they wrote of "foreign aliens," this is who they were referencing. They did not want anyone who was secretly loyal to the King of England. They didn't even consider Mexicans, Indians, or Africans as possible citizens.

Indians were "other persons" and blacks were either slaves or "other persons."

That is the CONTEXT in which all their writings must be understood.

If one were to take "The parents had to be citizens to produce citizens by birth.

No. The parents has to be citizens for their children to be NATURAL BORN citizens at birth. ANY other citizenship was not "natural born." It might be a citizenship at birth or a citizenship after birth, but in both of those cases those types of citizenship would be GRANTED by Congress in the Naturalization Act.

In the case where the Act gave automatic citizenship, there was no need to apply for citizenship. In the case where it was not automatic, it had to be applied for and approved.

ONLY in the case of citizen parents was the Naturalization Act ... NOT RELEVANT.

IF both parents were NOT citizens, THEN the Naturalization Act was relevant to determine if the child would have to apply for citizenship or be given it automatically.

If they were not citizens, then their children were not citizens." and birthright citizenship didn't exist, 'natural born citizens' would die off in a few generations and you'd be left with a vast majority of Naturalized citizens only.

No. The concept of "birthright citizenship" ... TODAY ... is NOT a LAW. It wasn't then and it is not today.

Today, it is ONLY A REGULATION, and NOT A LAW.

It is "policy" to pretend that anchor babies are citizens. Congress NEVER passed a law to make it so.

The 14th Amendment was passed so that the newly freed SLAVES could become citizens because their birth parents were UNKNOWN.

WHY do you think it was passed in 1866?

It has nothing to do with the office of President, AND it has nothing to do with anchor babies.

It says that any person who is (a) born on US soil AND (b) SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US ... is a US citizen.

A child born on US soil to 2 Mexican parents is "subject to the jurisdiction of" ... MEXICO.

The slaves had no known documentation of ancestry, so the southern States would not allow them to be citizens. This is why the 14th was passed.

It wasn't until the 1960's that this was abused by those who want to subvert the law.

I think you know that Hamilton ...

You cannot use Hamilton as an authority. He wanted a king. He wanted things that nobody else agreed to. He formed the first central bank (controlled by the Rothschilds).

He was a puppet.

He was the original "Federalist," which really meant that he wanted a BIG government (like a monarchy), and not a small government, which is what the word "federalist" actually meant in those days.

This is why the real federalists called themselves the "Anti-Federalists," as a way to push back on Hamilton's deception.

... was referring to immigrated aliens ...

ALL of the founders, including Hamilton, conceived of other BRITISH (WHITE) people potentially immigrating to the new nation. When they wrote of "foreign aliens," this is who they were referencing. They did not want anyone who was secretly loyal to the King of England. They didn't even consider Mexicans, Indians, or Africans as possible citizens.

Indians were "other persons" and blacks were either slaves or "other persons."

That is the CONTEXT in which all their writings must be understood.

If one were to take "The parents had to be citizens to produce citizens by birth.

No. The parents has to be citizens for their children to be NATURAL BORN citizens at birth. ANY other citizenship was not "natural born." It might be a citizenship at birth or a citizenship after birth, but in both of those cases those types of citizenship would be GRANTED by Congress in the Naturalization Act.

In the case where the Act gave automatic citizenship, there was no need to apply for citizenship. In the case where it was not automatic, it had to be applied for and approved.

ONLY in the case of citizen parents was the Naturalization Act ... NOT RELEVANT.

IF both parents were NOT citizens, THEN the Naturalization Act was relevant to determine if they child would have to apply for citizenship or be given it automatically.

If they were not citizens, then their children were not citizens." and birthright citizenship didn't exist, 'natural born citizens' would die off in a few generations and you'd be left with a vast majority of Naturalized citizens only.

No. The concept of "birthright citizenship" ... TODAY ... is NOT a LAW. It wasn't then and it is not today.

Today, it is ONLY A REGULATION, and NOT A LAW.

It is "policy" to pretend that anchor babies are citizens. Congress NEVER passed a law to make it so.

The 14th Amendment was passed so that the newly freed SLAVES could become citizens because their birth parents were UNKNOWN.

WHY do you think it was passed in 1866?

It has nothing to do with the office of President, AND it has nothing to do with anchor babies.

It says that any person who is (a) born on US soil AND (b) SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE US ... is a US citizen.

A child born on US soil to 2 Mexican parents is "subject to the jurisdiction of" ... MEXICO.

The slaves had no known documentation of ancestry, so the southern States would not allow them to be citizens. This is why the 14th was passed.

It wasn't until the 1960's that this was abused by those who want to subvert the law.