Obama Birth Certificate

I have transcribed Fraud in the USA Blue Hawaii video. It moves fairly quickly and it's difficult to grasp the content. I've combined some of the frames because they repeat the same information for emphasis, I think. The beginning of Fraud in the USA Blue Hawaii begins with references to Bikini Atoll, etc. Disclaimer: 8-15-10 - This post was reposted accidentally today. I do not know the original date of the posting but it was awhile ago. Rather than backdating it to some obscure date, I'll leave it up and I have added the actual video below with the description that comes from the poster.


Begin Transcription:

Hawaii is the home of the most powerful and influential person in the entire world. This person has already changed the course of modern history as we know it. ...AND NOW FOR HAWAII'S BOMB!

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, M.D., Director, Department of Health

Sometime between October 31, 2008, and July 27, 2009, the dates of Fukino's two press releases, Hawaii "amended" Obama's birth record. A brand-new Certificate of Live birth was produced and his prior vital records were sealed.

This is Barack Obama's brand-new "original birth certificate." [see graphic] The form is a "Certificate of Live Birth," and not the old "Certification of Live Birth" that is posted on his Campaign site.

So the point here is, two versions have surfaced.

This form was specifically designed with Obama's birth records in mind. It added new fields and changed existing ones. Obama can use it to "prove" he's a natural-born citizen.

Photo of the new form shows:

In top left corner, the previous version said "State of Hawaii Department of Health. 

It now says DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH INSTEAD OF HONOLULU

On June 16, 2008, before the "new form" mentioned in the video, the LA Times said the following birth certificate was provided to them by "the Obama campaign...". To see it enlarged click here

It differs from from the one in the video which says State of Hawaii, Department of Health and gives the certificate number in the right corner. Notice the LATimes version says State of Hawaii, Honolulu and then Department of Health, Hawaii USA and the certificate number is dropped a line or two. Both documents say Certificate of Live Birth.

On the LATimes bc it does not give the parents State/Country of birth. It gives only the county/city and island of the baby's birth. The video bc shown adds "Mother's State/Country of Birth - Kansas and Father's State/Country of Birth Africa.

The next video frame shows a bottom corner of the bc showing a revision date: (Rev. 10/08). The LATimes revision date is 11/01.

The video explains the legality of Hawaii changing Obama's birth certificate.  Next Frame:

[Statute]338-17.7 Establishment of new birth certificates of birth when. (a) The department of health shall establish in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the "birth registrant:"

Hawaii Statute 338-17.7 permits the Department of Health to issue a new birth certificate to a registrant who already has one on file. There are five conditions under which the Department would grant this request.

Three are relevant to Obama. Subparagraph (2) refers to a name change following a divorce decree. Subparagraph (3) refers to a similar request following an adoption decree, and Subparagraph (5) permits law eforcement to request a new birth certificate to ensure the safety of the birth registrant.

The DOH accused "Birthers" of inciting others to bombard them with emails demanding to see Obama's long-form birth certificate. They fear that it is inflaming rightwing extremists to make threats against Obama and DOH employees if they do not release a certified paper copy of his birth certificate.

Therefore, the DOH cited these "threats" as relevant to Option (5) in issuing a new birth certificate to Obama.

(5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant's original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.

(b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, STATUTE 1; am L 1975, c 66, STATUTE 2(3); AM L 1979, C 130, STATUTE 1 AND c

The video certificate shows the father's race as black and his country Africa. The LATimes certificate shows father's race as African.

Fukino has been at the center of the birth certificate controversy from its beginning in June 2008. Fuino's Oct. 2008 press release created more controversy by only stating that Hawaii "has Obama's original birth certificate on record."

Dr. Fukino never said that she saw Obama's paper birth certificate or any other tangible birth document. But the mainstream media, led by the Associated Press, lied to the public by saying that Fukino had confirmed Obama's birth in Hawaii. 

What Dr. Fukino saw was an index record indicating that they had an entry for Obama's "original birth certificate" in their database. That is what her "on record" comment meant. If Obama was born in Hawaii, then Fukino would have confirmed it.

On July 27, 2009, Fukino issued a second statement, nine months after her first, with no mention of "Obama's birth certificate." What she claims she saw this time was his "original vital records on file."

 [Fukino] "I have seen the original vital records on file verifying Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen."

These statement seems to be from whomever made the video:

I have also seen "records" that allegedly verify Obama was born in Hawaii: Every one of them is a forgery.

The time for taking Hawaii at its word is officially over.

Dr. Fukino violated Hawaii's laws by disclosing personal information from Obama's birth record without receiving prior authorization for it. 

Conversely, Dr. Fukino has refused to confirm that Hawaii produced the COLB posted on Obama's website.

 On February 23, 2010, Dr. Fukino testified at a State Senate hearing in Hawaii regarding the so-called, "Vexatious Requester Bill," saying "President Obama has posted a copy of the [birth] certificate on his former campaign website."

 Not only is Fukino's statement a blatant lie (and perjury), it shows more violations of Hawaiian Law:

(1) disclosing the name of the vital record issued to a named individual;

(2) conducting an illegal investigation into the identies of UIPA requesters.

 Testimony of Chiyome Fukino 2/23/10

"For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month 

seeking access to President Barack Obama's birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website."

 I receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a day - it's called SPAM and it doesn't need an unconstitutional law to have it stopped, no matter how "vexatious" I think they are. 

 These requests wanted Hawaii to release a genuine copy of his birth certificate and not a COLB copy that Fukino knows was forged

For the past two years, Hawaii has refused to confirm that the online COLB copy is a genuine 2007 COLB issued to Obama on June 6, 2007

 For the past two years, Hawaii has refused to provide any verifiable evidence that the original birth certificate they claim to have on record has the same information as in Obama's COLB.

 By blurting out that "President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website," Fukino repeated the Official Obama Party Lie and created a conundrum for herself and the entire Health Department. 

The only way to resolve the conundrum of refusing to authenticate the online certificate while saying that "Obama posted a copy of it on his website," was to amend his birth record, so as to make it match the information in the online COLB! 

There are audios and quotes from Governor Linda Lingle referring to Fukino's confirmations. The filmmaker says Director Fukino never said where he was born in her first press release. Lingle is quoted saying that she and the Health Director, "issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii."

The filmmaker says:

Lingle needs to get her lies straight. None of this ever happened.

Now, meet Janice Okubo, Communications Officer. The name, Janice Okubo, has become synonymous with Barack Obama's birth certificate ever since the political fact-checker, Politifact.com, anointed her (in June 2008) as the Official DOH Spokesperson for the Birth Certificate.

 Meet the 4th female player in this game of "Hawaiian Dodge Ball", Am Hollyfield, Politifact Reporter

I [the filmmaker] caught Hollyfield lying about Okubo in a phony story that was backdated to June 13, 2008. It had a lot of quotes from Okubo, none of which had been corroborated, yet all had incriminating evidence.

 Hollyfield had many quotes from Okubo ("Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter") that were contradictory, like "A copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008" (but date-stamped June 6, 2007), and "it's a valid Hawaii state birth certificate" but she could not say for certain what it represented.

 Even more contradictory was the fact that Hollyfield and Politifact had no interest at all in proving that Obama was born in Hawaii.Their sole reason for obtaining a copy of Obama's birth certificate was to debunk the bogus rumor they originated: "Obama's middle name is "Muhammed!"

HERE COMES ANOTHER BOMB! 

Okubo's "birth certificate" is not "identical" to Obama's A graphic shows a portion of the birth certificate showing: Child's Name Barack Hussein Obama II

 Okubo's "birth certificate" was used to make Obama's! There is a graphic seemingly showing a portion of both Okubo and Obama's name [see graphics in video]

Fact check photo #9 shows reverse side of Okubo's COLB Thee is a graphic dated Jun 6 2007, I certify that this a true copy of Abstract of the record on [unreadable] [Signed by] Alvin T. Onake, Ph. State of Hawaii

Flip it horizontally to align it as the "bleeding date-stamp" See a graphic of the reverse

Make a tranparent layer, crop the date and add blue to it Graphic blue date flipped

Reduce the layer's opacity and Photoshop it on the front. See the graphic

You have met four women who have played a key role in enabling the birth certificate fraud.

There is a fifth woman who also played a key role in fabricating the birth certificate fraud.

Factcheck's Jess Henig, photogrpher, writer, researcher and bogus COLB collaborator

HAWAII FIVE "UH-OH" Say, "Aloha," to the women of:

On July 27, 2009, Fukino issued the following statement: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.

The vital records that Fukino cited in her statement refer to information from the original birth certificate and the amended birth certificate: It's called, "Mix-n-Match!

 What did Hawaii Health officials know? They knew that Obama was not born in Hawaii. They knew that they did not issue his online COLB. They knew that they worked with Politifact and Factcheck to forge a COLB. They Knew they had broken the law by disclosing personal records. They knew they lied and perjured themselves in covering for Obama. They knew that the Governor would cover for them while the Attorney General would not.

Fraud in the USA - Blue Hawaii (video)

Texas Birthright: 60,000 Babies Born to Illegals: 74% of Parkland Total Deliveries are Birthright Babies

Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas delivers more birthright babies than any other hospital in Texas. Last year at Parkland alone 11,071 children were born to illegal alien mothers. At least 60,000, maybe as many as 65,000 babies receive birthrights in Texas every year.

Mexican Baby and Mom

Republicans are discussing correcting the incorrect interpretations of the 14th Amendment which supposedly grants U.S. citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) is countering by accusing Republicans of attacking babies in the womb.  Ironic - Democrats believe an in-womb baby is nothing more than a fetus. The hypocrisy is rank. Hispanics vote for them anyway.

Republicans are accused of trying to shift the voting demographic. I believe that is true, and why not, but that is not the only impetus to stop the invasion of illegal alien mother's dropping their babies in America. The cost to the American people is intolerable and...of course, it is a matter of law. Yes, we ignored that law for a very long time, but that is no excuse for declaring it now.

Democrats and fine with keeping things as they are, because their only consideration is voters. Amnesty will bring millions to the polls voting for Democrats, who haven't given a thought to the Rule of Law in years, if ever:

 "The next 10 years will be an even more transformative decade demographically for Texas," said Dr. Roberto Calderon, an associate history professor at the University of North Texas and a Latin American expert following the debate.

He speculated that the Republicans probably were aware of this ongoing demographic shift and how it might threaten their party since Hispanic voters tend to support Democrats.

"Manipulating the status ... the rights and the opportunities for Latinos is the only avenue many on the conservative right see as a solution to remaining viable electorally," he said. "They're expecting what used to be safe Republican seats on the state and federal level will no longer be so safe."     

Most Americans welcome our South of the Border neighbors to citizenship, but we would really like for it to be done legally. We need you for more than the jobs you fill. We need you to preserve our Christian heritage - to have your babies in America because without you, our Muslim population will overtake our birthrate. It has already happened in most of Europe. We have maintained only due to the rapid Hispanic birth rate. In other words, we will be a Muslim nation without Hispanic births...but please, come legally and have your deserving children be a part of the American dream. For background on the information in this paragraph, see view this video.

How can the iconic Parkland Memorial Hospital, where President John F. Kennedy died, keep it's doors open with 74% of their births being illegal migrant mother's. Is the government reimbursing the hospital? Are the illegals paying? Read the article here. Also read The 14th Amendment Gone Wrong, explaining the history behind the amendment.

The 14th Amendment Gone Wrong: Note to Congress: Fix the 14th Amendment

It is estimated that some 300,000 babies are born in the U.S. to illegal alien mothers. When birth is given in the U.S., the child is automatically granted citizenship by the 14th Amendment - kinda/sorta.  The problem equates to far more than a mother and child. The number of babies birthed here each year add more to the U.S. population than all other migrant categories. Families flow over the border once a child is U.S. born - and the baby, proudly known as an "anchor baby," or a "jackpot baby," is then able to sponsor the rest of his/her family from somewhere other than the U.S. From that, congressional districts grow, which are then redrawn, sending a Liberal's heart soaring. Nevermind the fact that illegals are routinely counted in our Census.

Revisiting the 14th Amendment shows where the Courts went wrong, in 1898 and again in 1982, making the assumption that citizenship is determined by "physical presence" rather than the "legal status of the parent." It is important to remember that at the ratification of the 14th, there was no such thing as immigration, illegal or not, so could not have been a part of original intent.

Finally, some Republicans are looking at the 14th Amendment and considering initiating hearings on ending the onslaught of illegal newborns. I feel this will go nowhere with this Congress, but if we are successful in taking back the Chambers, this should definitely be on the agenda. The Washington Post chalks this interest up to "election-year-bizarreness," but I believe it comes from the necessity to get Constitutional and do it now. Had we been "Constitutional," throughout the years, think of the problems we would not have.

One question few ask, is how many Muslim children are born here with illegal migrant parents? It's an interesting question because our Census laws forbid counting people who identify as a religion - which Muslims do, and we apparently do not consider the fact that the religion is also government, with allegiance to Islam - pick any Islamic country.

The question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for that?" asked Senator Jon Kyl on Face the Nation. Another way to ask that question is, should citizenship be determined by a newborn's physical presence here, or by the status of the parents, meaning if the parents are here illegally from Mexico, the child is considered a citizen of Mexico.

The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9th, 1868, was intended to assure native-born Black Americans citizenship. In 1868 our country had no immigration laws, and thus the legislation was never intended to include children born of illegal migrants inside our borders. The Amendment reads:

"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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Through 1897 various lawsuits upheld that the status of the parent determines the status of the child. However, in 1898, Wong Kim Ark brought the decision that plagues us today.

The question was put before the Supreme Court in 1898 in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, Mr. Ark was the child of Chinese immigrants who themselves were subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act then in force (that law prohibited Chinese nationals from immigrating to the United States and from seeking naturalization). Lawyers representing Ark argued that the language of the 14th Amendment granted automatic and irrevocable citizenship to Ark as he did not fall within any of the exceptions carved out in the Amendment.

Lawyers for the United States, on the other hand, asserted that babies born to immigrants did not deserve the status of citizen merely through the accident of the location of their birth — a concept known as jus soli.

The Court held in Wong Kim Ark that under the 14th Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of immigrant parents who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who are living permanently in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

It is relevant to note that the parents of Ark were not illegal aliens, but legally present non-citizen residents of the United States.

In 1982 came the most recent challenge to the 14th Amendment, known as Plyler v. Doe. The Supreme Court struck down a state statute denying funding for education to the children of illegals, asserting the  "jurisdiction" of the parents was a "physical presence," rather than the status of the parents determining the status of the child. Three hundred babies later, and likely triple to quadruple the 300,000 in other family flowing into the country, here we are. And where we are includes Muslims doing everything they can to have their children born on U.S. soil.

Citizenship - Illegal Immigration - Judicial Intervention

U.S. President George W. Bush (R) and first lady Laura Bush (3rd R) join five new American citizens in pledging allegiance to the U.S. flag following their citizenship ceremony at the reopened National Museum of American History in Washington November 19, 2008. Bush participated in the event where the renovated museum was reopened. Photo Credit: Reuters and Daylife.com

Have you wondered why any baby born on American soil with illegal parents is considered a legal American citizen? The answer may shock you as much as it did me.
My reference is a discussion at the Heritage Foundation, dated March 30, 2006 by John C. Eastman, Ph.D.

—John C. Eastman, Ph.D., is Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. This memorandum stems from an amicus brief filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of respondents in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

The key to the 14th Amendment which defines U.S. citizenship are the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which means that no one can be a U.S. citizen if their allegiance is to any other country. For instance, an Ambassador to the U.S., living in the U.S. but serving allegiance to another country cannot be a U.S. citizen - and neither can the Ambassador's child...well, maybe.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­ment provides that “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.”[1] As manifest by the con­junctive “and,” the clause mandates citizenship to those who meet both of the constitutional prerequi­sites: (1) birth (or naturalization) in the United States and (2) being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Today's incorrect viewpoint, according to Dr. Eastman:

The widely held, though erroneous, view today is that any person entering the territory of the United States—even for a short visit; even illegally—is considered to have subjected himself to the juris­diction of the United States, which is to say, sub­jected himself to the laws of the United States. Surely one who is actually born in the United States is therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and entitled to full citizenship as a result, or so the common reasoning goes.

Why that viewpoint is incorrect:

The “subject to the jurisdiction” provision must therefore require something in addition to mere birth on U.S. soil. The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”[3] As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s par­ents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country was not entitled to claim the birth­right citizenship provided by the 1866 Act.

An historical example: In Elk v. Wilkins, John Elk was born on an Indian reservation and eventually moved off the reservation, renounced his tribal allegiance and applied for U.S. Citizenship. He was denied citizenship because at birth, his allegiance was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. According to the Supreme Court, he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe and not to the U.S. - and his tribe was considered an alien nation. In a geographical sense, Elk was born within the U.S., but according to the 14th Amendment was not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Then comes the Court action that changed everything.

In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Horace Gray, writing for the Court, held that “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth were subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and resi­dence in the United States,” was, merely by virtue of his birth in the United States, a citizen of the United States as a result of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Justice Gray [who also served on the Court in the Elk case] appears not to have appreciated the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the terri­tory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sover­eign’s laws [such as an Emperor, a King, a Prince, a Queen] and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.

By limiting the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause to the children of diplomats, who neither owed alle­giance to the United States nor were (at least at the ambassadorial level) subject to its laws merely by virtue of their residence in the United States as the result of the long-established international law fic­tion of extraterritoriality by which the sovereignty of a diplomat is said to follow him wherever he goes, Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk, namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, alle­giance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other.

Gray "astoundingly" ignored the Constitution's requirement for a citizen to swear an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. and renounce all allegiance to any other country.

Finally, Justice Gray’s position is incompatible with the notion of consent that underlay the sover­eign’s power over naturalization. What it meant, fundamentally, was that foreign nationals could secure American citizenship for their children merely by giving birth on American soil, whether or not their arrival on America’s shores was legal or illegal, temporary or permanent.

Justice Gray saw only two classes of children ineligible for U.S. citizenship: the children of ambassadors and other foreign diplomats, and the children of members of invading armies who were born on U.S. soil while it was occupied by a foreign army.

...apart from these two narrow exceptions, all children of foreign nationals who managed to be born on U.S. soil were, in Justice Gray’s formulation, citizens of the United States. Children born of parents who had been offered permanent residence but were not yet citizens, and who as a result had not yet renounced their allegiance to their prior sovereign, would become citizens by birth on U.S. soil.

Children of parents residing only temporarily in the United States on a student or work visa would also become U.S. citizens. Children of parents who had overstayed their temporary visas would like­wise become U.S. citizens, even though born of parents who were now in the United States ille­gally. And, perhaps most troubling from the “con­sent” rationale, even children of parents who never were in the United States legally would become citizens as the direct result of the illegal action by their parents. This would be true even if the par­ents were nationals of a regime at war with the United States and even if the parents were here to commit acts of sabotage against the United States, at least as long as the sabotage did not actually involve occupying a portion of the territory of the United States. The notion that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, when seeking to guaran­tee the right of citizenship to former slaves, also sought to guarantee citizenship to the children of enemies of the United States who were in its terri­tory illegally is simply too absurd to be a credible interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.

The U.S. Congress has the sole power to grant U.S. citizenship to children of foreign nationals. but so far, this has not happened. The idea of "birthright" citizenship, is, Dr. Eastman says, "contrary to the principle of consent that is one of the bedrock principles of the American regime." In 2006, the Heritage Foundation called for Congress to revive it's "constitutional power over naturalization."

It is time for the courts, and for the political branches as well, to revisit Justice Gray’s erroneous interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, restoring to the constitutional mandate what its drafters actually intended: that only a complete jurisdic­tion, of the kind that brings with it a total and exclusive allegiance, is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship to which the people of the United States actually consented.

"While Congress seems to be reluctant to get at odds with a "co-equal" branch of government, (exercising it's own constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution in way contrary to the pronouncements of the courts) Eastman says it is their sole duty to do so.

Congress’s power over natu­ralization is “plenary,” [complete, entire, absolute] while “judicial power [Supreme Court] over immigration and naturalization is extremely lim­ited.

Dr. Eastman's entire paper is well worth a read - you'll find much more detail. Look for the comments about creating redundancy within the Constitution interesting. The Citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment was written by Senator Jacob M. Howard (MI). 14th Amendment.us gives us his own words to explain the meaning and intention of the Citizenship clause:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, 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. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

The above discussion continues with Senator Howard responding to Senator Lyman Trumbull who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of the 13th Amendment. Then Senator Johnson takes the floor:

...all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power...shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.

There is more discussion and more confirmations from members of the U.S. Senate as to the original intention of the 14th Amendment. Please visit 14th Amendment.us. If you are interested in illegal immigration, you'll want this document bookmarked. A reminder: Congress is solely responsible for citizenship. Related Reference: Citizenship clause of the 14 Amendment