U.S.Jurisdiction & Alien Visitors

The principle of  jus sanguinis is law by the Fourteenth Amendment

The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, stated in 1866
: “We must depend on the general law recognized by all nations relating to citizens for a definition , and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”  ["Temporary sojourners" like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school,]

“When children inherit the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs to regardless of where they might be born.  Citizenship through descent from the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.”

Children are subject to the jurisdiction of their father.  If the father is subject to U.S. jurisdiction by permanent residency, then by the principle of jus sanguinis his children are likewise subject through their hereditary connection to him.  That is transmitted two ways.  If he is un-naturalized then children born to him in the U.S. are automatically subject also and are naturalized at birth.  They are citizens by automatic naturalization.  But they are not citizens by birth to him because he is not a citizen.
If he becomes naturalized, then children born to him abroad, prior to immigration, are automatically naturalized also by jus sanguinis citizenship inheritance.  They are not forced to wait until they are adults and then also go through the process to be naturalized.  Instead that status of the father is applied simultaneously to his foreign born children via jus sanguinis.

["The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one alone before finally becoming a citizen."]

United States Attorney General George Williams ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens…” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”  [excluding all foreign diplomats, visitors, and Native Americans]

Since US citizens and legal permanent residents don’t owe allegiance to any other nation, arguing that mere physical presence in the US, and being subject to non-political & military laws makes one subject to US jurisdiction is absurd because being subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an aliens allegiance to their own native country.

Obama Sr. was not subject to US jurisdiction since he was a foreign visitor with a student visa, and therefore his son’s birth in the U.S. was not covered by the 14th Amendment.

Obama’s native birth (still unproven with any certification) is irrelevant because his birth to an alien visitor left him not subject to U.S. Jurisdiction.

No one born to an alien father was born a natural citizen.

No one not subject to the full political and military jurisdiction of the United States at birth is a citizen by the 14th Amendment.

No one who’s citizenship is outside of the 14th Amendment is a natural citizen but is instead a citizen by statute.

Obama’s citizenship is solely through his mother, -by statute.  No one who is a citizen by statute is a natural citizen.

No one who is a citizen by statute was born as a natural citizen.

No one who is not a natural citizen (by birth, not merely at birth) is eligible to be the President of the United States.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Someone stated in response to the Slaughterhouse quote: “According to this statement by the Court, those born in the country of alien parents are not citizens of the U.S.”
The statement by the court regarding those who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, which excluded foreign citizens, did not take into account foreign citizens/subjects who were immigrants, as in permanent legal residents of the U.S. rather that temporary visitors.  The legal definitions of foreigners and aliens divides them into two very distinct categories, namely; Immigrant Aliens (unnaturalized), and Non-immigrant aliens or Foreigners.  Immigrant aliens are adjudged to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  Therefore their U.S. born children are deemed to be U.S. citizens even without the naturalization of the parents.  Their citizenship is statutory automatic citizenship, but not natural citizenship.
Slaughterhouse quote: “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”  It appears that the court in this statement made no distinction between immigrant aliens and non-immigrant aliens, so it can be asserted that the court in Wong chose to proclaim immigrant alien children to be citizens without any historical legal foundation, -though the Immigration Service up until then may have done so on its own depending on who was in the White House.

Gray wrote in Wong Kim Ark 1898: “…it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship…”  While that’s seemingly in contradiction to his earlier stance in Elk v Wilkins, that may not be the case if you consider the import of the words “were not intended to exclude”.  If you assume that he knew full well that by not distinguishing between children born to alien visitors and children born to alien immigrants that the wording would indicate a blanket denial of citizenship to ALL children born of aliens, then you can say that he did an about face.  But if in his mind he failed to grasp the over-simplification of the exclusionary wording and how all-inclusive it was, then it could be assumed that at the time of the Elk decision and opinion, that he ignorantly presumed that the words wouldn’t be construed to include children of immigrants.  There’s no way to know if he was just linguistically stupid in not grasping the full meaning of the words he quoted from Slaughterhouse or if he did and later pretended that that meaning was stupid for including immigrant children.  Either way there’s a mark against either his intellectual competence or his integrity.

Civil Rights Act 1866 “‘All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”  Nearly every word in that sentence is significant, including “are hereby declared to be…”  The use of the word “are” was a mistake since it referred only to those alive when it was written, and not to future cases of the yet unborn.  Also, the use of the phrase “declared to be” clearly indicates that such citizenship is by act of Congress and is therefore a form of naturalization, and not natural citizenship.  The 14th Amendment didn’t repeat such wording and resulted in a very different meaning, including the change to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.  That demonstrates that it was U.S. policy to not consider whether or not any foreign nation feels it has jurisdiction over children born in the U.S. to their subjects/ citizens.  Instead its only consideration is whether of not it views children born to aliens to be subject to its own jurisdiction.  Wong resulted in the position that U.S. policy is that U.S. born children of aliens are subject through their parents and all immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, though that still excludes foreign visitors of whatever type.

This section contains a logic error: ““in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States”, the truth is that they were completely and *permanently*(???) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., because the treaty with the Emperor of China *ALLOWED* them to permanently change their home and allegiance.  The ties that bound them to China *HAD BEEN SEVERED* by the treaty,”
No ties were severed by one being allowed to sever ties.  It would have taken a pro-active action to sever those ties in a recognized manner, such as taking an oath of allegiance to the United States before a magistrate which included renouncing allegiance to the Emperor.   Also, this statement is illogical: “China released its subjects from owing any allegiance at all to their mother country.”  Subjects weren’t released from owing allegiance unless they personally choose to be released.  It wasn’t forced upon them by the treaty.  None of its statements proclaim that permanent residence is a de facto renunciation of their allegiance to their emperor.  The treaty merely allows them to make that choice because it is their human right.  It’s not mandatory.  Permanent allegiance need not accompany permanent residence.  It’s a choice.  But permanent residence does involve subjection to the jurisdiction of the national government.  It is that jurisdiction that was deemed the basis of granting U.S. citizenship to children of aliens.  Such alien immigrants are not U.S. nationals because that requires being born within a territory over which the U.S. exercises sovereignty, such as American Samoa, and the Swain Islands.

my favorite points:  1.Those requiring naturalization are not natural-born.”  2. “…the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was a naturalization act”
3. “The only congressional power to regulate citizenship  pertains to naturalization.”  4. “…no citizen is eligible to be POTUS who wouldn’t have been eligible prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment.”  Allow me to add one of my own: No one is a natural citizen if their citizenship is by law because Congress was not given the authority to legislate regarding the status of natural citizens.  Their citizenship comes by a law that was never written because it didn’t need to be.  AN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Official Definition of Immigrant:

There’s a bigger issue than ignorance of U.S. law, and it’s in regard to the inadequacy of U.S. law.  The policy of law that I’ve been logically but blindly espousing isn’t just a supposition of my imagination after all since it’s codified, as I recently discovered here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001101—-000-.html

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101

§ 1101. Definitions

(15) The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes

of nonimmigrant aliens
(A)
(i) an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family;…

(B) an alien (other than one coming for the purpose of study or of performing skilled or unskilled labor or as a representative of foreign press, radio, film, or other foreign information media coming to engage in such vocation) having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning and who is visiting the United States temporarily for business or temporarily for pleasure;…

(i) an alien having a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning, who is a bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study and who seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

None of those in the extensive list of foreigners presently within the U.S. can be considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States since they are instead subject to international treaty and the jurisdiction of their own nation.  They aren’t immigrants, they are foreigners and foreigners aren’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Any view to the contrary is a manifestation of ignorance and irrationality.   Unfortunately, many people in positions of authority have been taught by teachers who were ignorant and irrational.  AN

A Peculiar Relation

“a peculiar relation to the national government
-UNKNOWN TO THE COMMON LAW”

“Quotes from the Supreme Court citizenship case of Wong Kim Ark, 1898  The courts remarks included:
The real object of the 14th amendment of the constitution [defining U.S. citizenship], in qualifying the words “all persons born in the United States” by the addition of  “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country…”
This paragraph includes a statement that is an invaluable aid to grasping a fact that is easily overlooked by those with a strict allegiance to the legal consensus status quo, and that is the fact that even assumed-to-be fundamental principles are not written in stone, but are molded to accommodate reality.  The statement was written in regard to Native Americans, a group that didn’t fit into the accepted principles of assigning citizenship since they had a “peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law”.  It was a situation for which there was no “rule book” so they had to adjust and improvise to come-up with a workable position for the government.  That was an unknown situation then, and unknown situations haven’t disappear over time, but have increased.
When the Constitution was written there was no such thing as motorized trans-border transportation or migration.  There was no such thing as masses of foreign humans willing to sacrifice almost everything in order to cross the borders of the 13 States to be able to work in the new United States.  There was no such thing as huge flying machines that can transport humans through the air and across a continent or an ocean, -carrying foreign humans who would be permitted to visit the United States is vast numbers.  It’s safe to say that such situations  were also “unknown to the common law”.
But now, instead of births to foreign invaders occupying our national territory standing out as “exceptions”, instead we have the totally unexpected and unknown situation of millions of people occupying our country illegally.  Where is that situation in the common law with its fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country? Now there are vast numbers of occupants of our nation who have a “peculiar relation to the national government” instead of a relatively small number of cases.  How does the historically blind government deal with these invaders?  It declares their children to be U.S. citizens (!) because of the mistaken belief that “the fundamental rule of citizenship” demands it.  This insane approach makes it possible that a firstborn child born across the border before the family is smuggled into the U.S. will have siblings just a year or two younger who are considered U.S. citizens while they are considered aliens.  How does a government sanely deal with such a peculiar relationship when it confronts the task of deportation?  It can’t because there is no solution.
This madness is purely the result of the aberrant, dysfunctional, and historically uncivilized practice of the principle of national status based on birth location, rather than parentage.

“This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word ‘jurisdiction,’ in the last clause of the same section of the fourteenth amendment, which forbids any state to ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ It is impossible to construe the words ’subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words ‘within its jurisdiction,’ in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the states of the Union are not ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’”
This logic is totally pedantic and sophoristic logic.  The word “within” relates to space and boundaries, while “subject” relates to relationships between two parties.  Being within the jurisdiction or authority is not synonymous with being subject to the authority unless one is a programmed robot.  Entities, including foreigners (and governments), have certain rights and their relationship is not solely a product of occupying a certain space claimed by the authority.  Rather it is contingent on certain conditions, it’s conditional.  If conditions are met then one may choose to be in rebellion instead of submission or subjection.  Outlaws, bandits, invaders, rebels and enemy combatants may be within the King’s/the government’s territory but not be subject to the authority.  This principle is shown by the existence of universally accepted exceptions.  The exceptions are evidence that the government’s sovereignty is limited by certain principles and is not absolute.  This is true either by necessity, or by necessity along with being the chosen policy of the government.
Foreign representatives, independent Native Americans and Aleuts, and visiting foreigners are not subject to the U.S. federal jurisdiction, and cannot be ordered to be conscripted into the military, nor forced to file income tax, nor buy health care insurance, nor to not visit Cuba, nor tried for treason.  They are immune to the full political authority of the federal government all the while being subject to civil and criminal law (except as exempted by treaty).  These days a child born to a visiting foreign woman is a child that can’t be presumed to have a future of growing up in America because, unlike the past, the mother/parents can simply drive or fly right out of the country on any chosen day.  The paradigm has changed from rural to urban, from urban to suburban, from county to state, from state to national, from national to international.  We live in a different world but our concepts of the principles of citizenship are frozen in the ignorant past, ossified and we are now the victims of that ignorance.

“It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher’s case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: ‘Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a foreign born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.’” Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster’s Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92.
This is an amazing presumption that is based solely on fallacious impressions.  What is stated is the policy of a dictatorship, not a free democratic republic.  Its position is that anyone who visits the United States is subject to being drafted into the Army.  The truth is the exact opposite of what is claimed.  “It can hardly be denied…it is well known that…”  These assertions are false and fly in the face of reason.  They only have validity if the words “independently of ” are omitted, because they make the statement ridiculously erroneous.  Subjection to political jurisdiction is totally dependent on any of the situations enumerated being true rather than not being true.  It hinges on the meaning of the words “resides” and “continues”.  Residence (domiciliation) is the opposite of transiency (visitation) and those two possible situations determine the government’s established view of whether or not one is subject to its jurisdiction.

“To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
The 14th Amendment was written to guarantee citizenship to children born of U.S. immigrants.  By it they are native born citizens.  If their parents are naturalized to become U.S. citizens, the children subsequently born to them will be natural born citizens, -born to citizen parents.  If the parents are not naturalized, nor even immigrants but only visitors, their children are ineligible to be the president of the United States because they would not be natural born citizens.

“So it is settled. Persons born here are fully and completely subject to our jurisdiction, and are citizens by birth [with exceptions]. All you need to finish the question of presidential eligibility is a dictionary.”
This statement reveals the magnitude of ignorance that is endemic in the country.  Not only is it factually baseless, but it’s also logically baseless.  Its assumption is that native birth confers eligibility.  Or a more complex assumption is that native-birth citizenship is equivalent to natural born citizenship but that looks at only their similarity and ignores their difference.  The similarity is the location of birth, the difference is to whom they are born; -citizens or not citizens, i.e; aliens.

The Golden Birthright Comparison

Where the Inmates Run the Asylum

Consider this imaginary scenario;  A tribe / group lives within a territory that has been theirs for eons, and within their territory there is a stream that is very special.  It contains a vast number of little gold nuggets which resulted from a red hot golden meteor falling into the middle of the stream’s cold waters and striking an igneous boulder four feet below the surface which caused it to explode into thousands of little gold pieces.  That gold belongs to the group, -to its members who are the owners of the territory where it’s located.  Nobody who is not a group member is allowed to take or claim it.  Only those born into the group get added to the number of souls who have a right to it.  If one is not born to parents who are group members then one has no right to it, but those who are born to group members have a right by birth to the gold because they are group members also.  It’s their birthright.

One day two outsiders, a couple, sneak into the groups territory and the woman goes into labor and gives birth openly before the eyes of the group members.  The group will have one of two possible responses.  In a group that is analogous to nations that are original nations and were never colonies of an empire, the members will simply order the outsiders to leave and take their newborn with them because they have no right to be on their land, nor any right to the riches it contains nor any right to membership in the group.

A group that is analogous to nations that were once long-term colonies of an empire, like the United States, will throw up their hands and complain, “Oh great, now we’re stuck with an alien new member who ‘inherits’ the right to our group membership and our gold!”  In their warped world, the “birthright” is not a right inherited by birth to member parents, instead it’s a right to belong to the land itself and its riches.  That “right” was an ancient legacy of having once been ruled and owned by a more powerful group which considered anything born on the land to belong to them.  After the group freed themselves from the tyranny of their oppressors, they became a normal group in every sense except the one exception of failing to realize that membership in the group comes naturally by being born to group members, not by being born on the land that the group owns.

The United States has fallen victim to a grand delusion because of erroneous interpretations of American law that deals with immigrants, interpretations resulting from the delusional thinking that is the legacy of colonial rule, during which the colonies were the personal property of the Crown and all persons born on his land belonged to his domain and had only the rights that he allowed them.  Their rights were never equal to those possessed in the land that they left or the land of their ancestors.  So their new religious freedom came with an absence of a right of representation and petition before the government in Britain.  Colonies never have the rights of the homeland because they are not a part of it.  Instead they are merely external properties administered by the lord of the colony, -the governor appointed by the sovereign.
The legacy of nearly two hundred years of colonial rule is that the concept of belonging to the land where one is born is ingrained in the American psyche, while nations that were never colonies hold the natural view of belonging to ones parents and their membership in society and nation.

The Trailer Park Comparison

The feudal / colonial model of attachment to the soil where one was born is analogous to an imaginary situation of property ownership in which one is born to an indebted purchaser of a mobile home in a mobile home park.   The owner of the park also owns his own home and the land it sits on.  He is a free man because he is not tied to that property.  He can sell it whenever he wishes because he owns it.  The family in the mobile home can’t do that because they don’t own the land the home sits on, all they can sell is the home itself.  But they can’t sell it either unless they’ve fully paid for it.
In the park there are rules, people must obey the rules because the property does not belong to them.  If the family buying the mobile home is only able to make their rent payment by renting a room to someone, and then the park owner decides that renting is no longer allowed, they will be in big trouble.  They, (like the colonies) don’t own the land and can’t tell the park owner to take his rules and shove them because they don’t have the same rights as owners of their own property, just as colonists didn’t have the same rights as freemen of England.
If the unmarried father of the family dies, then the family debt falls on the shoulders of the children, in particular the eldest son.  He / they are tied to the mobile home by debt, just as the peasants / serfs were once tied to the land of the estate owner by debt handed down from generation to generation.  Their children inherited the parents debts and so were essentially “owned” by the estate owner.  They were owned by what they owed.

The American colonists were in a similar situation.  They were “owned” by the Monarch being as the New World territories belonged to him and not the nation of England.  When the New World lands were claimed, they were not claimed in the name of England, but in the name of the King of England.  Big difference.

The American mind-set still thinks in terms of belonging to the land that they were born on, belonging to the trailer which they inherited, rather than belonging to the parents that gave them birth, and to the group of which they were members.  Other nations are not the victim of this kind of thinking, unless they also were once colonies.

Barack Obama has greatly benefited from this thinking because of the erroneous view that birth on the group’s land automatically makes one a natural member, as if that were a law of nature, when instead that violates the law of nature by which one is a member by being born to parents who are members.  That is the natural pattern in the animal world as well as the human world, and is the practice in all nations that were never colonies.

On top of  the delusion about place of birth and membership, is the delusion that all membership is identical, even though some are members by birth, while others are only members by group rules.  Obama is not a natural member but is a member by group rules because he was born to a father that was not a member of the group, nor even lived in the group territory, but was only an outsider visiting it.  The rules of the group state that only a full-blooded member is allowed to be the Chief, but the group thinks that any member of any sort who happened to have been born on the group’s land is eligible to be the Chief.  They don’t understand the principles of group membership nor the history of their own group and how that history has warped their view from one that is natural to one that is unnatural.

No animal ever born was a member of its species because it was born on the land inhabited by the species.  Species membership is passed from the parents to the off-spring.  If, hypothetically, a male of one species mates with a female of another species, their off-spring will not be a natural member of either species, but will be a hybrid.  No hybrid is a natural member of any group.  That is the law of nature.

That kind of natural law is what is referred to in the Declaration of Independence when it mentions “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”, as well as in the Constitution when it forbids anyone from being the President unless they are a “natural born citizen”.  That means that they must be a citizen by natural law, not by “the law of the soil” (jus soli -which is the bastardized principle practiced on feudal estates, in the colonies, and on the slave-owner’s plantation).  Once again, after over 100 years of being rid of it, our country returned to it in 1898 after misunderstanding a Supreme Court ruling, -like a dog returns to its vomit.
By this illegitimate principle, any son of a mass-murdering terrorist or narco-trafficer can be entrusted with the most powerful office in the history of the world as long as they are born on the soil of our nation, while a member of Seal Team 6, who’s the son of a medal of honor winner, with American roots going back to before the revolution, could not be allowed to be the President if his mother delivered him just a few feet over the Canadian border.  It’s safe to say that the inmates are running the asylum, and those inmates are us.

a.r. nash  2011     http://obama–nation.com   http://photobucket.com/obama_bc

Oblivious to the Absurdity

When All Means Most

The election of Barack Obama was predicated on an ignorance of fundamental citizenship principles and a misunderstanding of a Supreme Court ruling that took place over one hundred years ago.  Without both of those circumstances working in his favor, he could not have been even nominated, much less elected.  The misunderstood court ruling was based on the citizenship statement of the 14th Amendment.  That statement was a declaration and a proclamation all wrapped up in an overly simple ambiguous sentence.

Since its authors could not foresee the future, they didn’t realize that its meaning could be understood in very different ways, -ways that would turn out to be extremely significant.   Only one way can be the correct way, but the colonial history of the United States led to the wrong way coming to be seen as that which is the United States policy regarding citizenship.

The New World territories claimed on behalf of the Kings of England were never a part of England and its political structure, therefore they were outside of the realm of the acquired rights of the freemen of England.  Rights of the colonist went only so far as his Imperial Majesty allowed and there was no recourse to be had because all of his lands in the New World were his personal property.  That meant that everyone born on his personal property belonged to the country (colony) of their birth, and all of those colonies belonged to the monarchy.
They were subjects of his dominion rather than citizens of Britain with the rights of freemen.   Under that kind of relationship to the monarchy one was a Virginian by birth in Virginia, and an American by birth in America, while in England, one was an Englishman by birth in England.  Everyone belonged to the realm in which they were born and all those realms belonged to the King.

After the American revolution, the principle of one’s connection to their sovereign (being based on birth within the borders of his land) switched from pertaining ultimately to the King to pertaining principally to their State, and through it to the United States government.   Citizens, in effect, belonged to their state by birth within its territory, or so they assumed. There was no reason to think otherwise.  Whether they were citizens due to where they were born or due to the parents they were born to, or both, didn’t matter.  The difference between the two principles had no real world effect since the results in both cases was citizenship from birth, except in rare cases, such as that of Barack Obama, one born with an alien father.

The principle of birth location determining citizenship was not followed in most states, but it was in some because it was their colonial law, so it continued because it had been the practice for a century and a half.  Most Americans didn’t know nor have any reason to care about the principles of citizenship, but the Immigration Service did, and they ascribed citizenship based on that of the father.  The national government recognized national citizenship not based on state borders but on patrilinial descent, -as a birthright inheritance from one’s father.

That principle didn’t change even after the passage of the 14th Amendment, but was eventually stopped in regard to children born to foreign immigrants following a Supreme Court case in 1898. (Wong Kim Ark)  The principle of citizenship inherited from one’s father was flawless for children born to citizens in their own land, but was terrible for children born to foreigners in a new land that they had emigrated to because it made them citizens not of the nation they were born in but of a foreign nation that they had no connection to and might never even visit.

But a consequence of that Court ruling was a misunderstanding of the principle that was actually applied by the 14th Amendment.   In the view of the public and judiciary, it appeared that the U.S. had reinstated what has been the English and colonial tradition but even that tradition was not correctly understood.  That misunderstanding was the result of a lack of awareness that not all who might be born on the land are actually of the land.  Some might be of another land, such as children born to foreign ambassadors or foreign visitors who were unable to leave the U.S. before delivery of their baby.  The words of the 14th Amendment were meant to exclude them, along with Native Americans, from U.S. citizenship.

The 14th Amendment makes two statements, one is that naturalized citizens are citizens, making that fact a constitutional fact, not just a fact by mere legislation.  The other implies a declaration of two facts.  One was  the fact that Negroes, who had previously been slaves, were now constitutionally recognized as United States citizens.   The other was a declaration of a newly granted constitutional right by which children born in the United States to domiciled foreigners were recognized as native-born American citizens at birth.

That was a declaration stating what had been true already in the eyes of many in the area of state immigration jurisprudence.  That fact is seen by the use of the word “are” instead of “shall be deemed to be”.  “Are” implies that it was already a fact, and now is a fact federally, constitutionally.
Those who wrote the 14th Amendment aimed it at all states that had supported slavery, which viewed Negroes as sub-human and not worthy of equality and citizenship.  It declared them to be citizens by the authority of the federal government and the U.S. Constitution.  That declaration was in the face of strong opposition and resentment.
It was accompanied by the concomitant effect of the Congress, via the amendment, also proclaiming it national policy that children of immigrants are not foreigners but American citizens.  That wasn’t aimed at the former slave states but at the Immigration Services of the states and federal government, as well as the State Department (which controls passports) and the Justice Department (which sues to support the policy of the administration, including the Immigration Service).
The executive branch viewed the children of immigrants as foreign citizens until their father became naturalized, even after the passage of the 14th Amendment because three decades later Wong Kim Ark had to sue the government through every level of the federal court system, -all the way to the Supreme Court just to be treated as a U.S. citizen.  He was denied that right when, as the son of Chinese immigrants, he attempted to re-enter the U.S. after visiting his grandparents in China.  No court but the Supreme Court validated his claim that the 14th Amendment applied to children of immigrants even if they weren’t naturalized.
Thanks to his victory, they now are seen as citizens because they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction through their lawful immigrant parents.  That’s recognized as a fact due to their parents making the U.S. their permanent home, and by them being born in the U.S. and having no direct connection to the land of their parents’ birth.

The words of the 14th Amendment; “ALL persons born in the United States…are citizens of the United States.” have come to be erroneously construed to mean something that they don’t actually mean.  The assumption is that the word “All” means “All persons” born in the United States, when in fact it doesn’t.  Instead it means “most”, or nearly all.  By what logic can that be asserted?  By the logic intrinsic to the “and” part of the statement, which I omitted.  It should read “All persons born in the United States or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The middle clause requiring being subject to U.S. jurisdiction is commonly referred to as excluding only children born to foreign diplomats and government personnel in the United States to represent their country.

The use of the words “and subject to…” makes it clear that citizenship is conditional, that the described condition must be met or one is not a citizen.  “And” is like a pivot point, determining which side of the scale tilts up or down.  Citizenship: Yes? or No?  It depends.  It depends on whether or not an immigrant-born child is subject to U.S. jurisdiction or not.

The inclusion of this conditional clause implies that some persons are subject and some persons are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  So “All” really refers to all of those who are subject, and to none of those who are not.  Thus, to say that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States is false.  Completely false actually because the use of the word “All” makes it entirely 100% true or entirely false.  One can only say truthfully that almost all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, but the conditional requirement must be met first, and not all can meet it.

The group that lacked citizenship but met both requirements were American-born former slaves and children born to immigrants.  The groups that did not were the children of Native Americans, foreign representatives, and foreign visitors because their parents were not subject to U.S. Jurisdiction since they remained subject to the authority of their own government..

Just as foreign diplomats, (and formerly Native Americans) are not subject to the full political jurisdiction of the federal government, so also foreign visitors are not subject either because they are even more foreign than the diplomats since they don’t even live in the United States.   They are just here today and gone tomorrow.  How can any sane person think that the U.S. government can draft a foreign tourist into the U.S. military during time of war and force them to face possible death in combat?
The U.S. government assumes no such authority over visitors or else none would visit, and Americans would be subject to the same treatment while visiting disgruntled foreign nations.  But in fact no nation on earth assumes such jurisdiction over guests from other nations.

That citizenship statement of the 14th Amendment involves the three “A”s;  All…And…Are.  You cannot leave out the “and” and have the result be true, although Americans are oblivious to that fact.  “All persons…Are citizens…” is false.  By the plain wording of the 14th Amendment, the conclusion that is inescapable is that “All persons born in the United States” are NOT citizens because some of them are exceptions under the conditional clause.  Anyone who does not met the condition is not a citizen.

How does one meet the condition?  The condition that is viewed as being subject to U.S. jurisdiction is that of being a permanent resident of the United States.  All permanent residents are considered to be members of American society and they can be drafted during time of war, and imprisoned for refusing service.

With residency comes the responsibility of citizens to defend the nation.  All those who carry that responsibility are clearly subject to U.S. authority even if they do not view themselves to be so, as was the case of an old Mexican compadre of mine who saved my life.  He was sent to the  federal penitentiary for refusing to serve during World War II.
He didn’t feel that the U.S. government had the right to draft him but the government felt that it did because he was enjoying the benefits of U.S. citizens by residing in the U.S., and therefore had to share the same responsibilities.  So the consequences of permanent residency are real and discernable as evidence (or interpretable as evidence) of subjection to U.S. jurisdiction.

Foreign visitors do not share those consequences since they do not enjoy U.S. residency except for a prescribed limited period.  Then they must leave.  They are not citizens and if one of them has a child before returning home, their child does not fit the description of one who is subject to U.S. jurisdiction because it is under the jurisdiction of its parent(s), and they are not subject.  But the American public, and the U.S. government are oblivious to this common sense fact, and the result is that the same erroneous impression is held by citizenship-hungry foreigners who think the Americans must know what they are doing, when in fact they do not.

The source of the problem is the flawed, ambiguous wording of the 14th Amendment which makes a statement that can be construed to mean different things.  One extreme example is a case of a child born in the U.S. to a foreign diplomat or to a foreign visitor who is soon back home after leaving the U.S.  Such a child is not a citizen by the 14th Amendment, yet if he returns to the U.S. as an adult and obtains permanent residency, he can claim that to become a citizen he does not have to go through the naturalization process because he is subject to U.S. jurisdiction and was born in the United States, therefore he is a citizen already.  There is no logical counter to his argument except to argue that such a case is outside of the amendment’s original intent.

So it is clear that the authors of the 14th Amendment sacrificed clarity and non-ambiguity for brevity.  That carried a consequence that they could not have imagined, -a very harmful consequence that would later bite the foot of the nation like a scorpion when poor foreigners discovered that those crazy Americans think that “All” persons born in the United States are citizens.  And having a relative (child) that is a U.S. citizen could gradually lead to acquiring permission for its relatives to enter and work in the United States as permanent residents.

[Note: since writing the preceding text months ago, text that sounds as if there is no such thing as gender difference, it has dawn on me that when the 14th Amendment was written, women, whether American or immigrant, were not included as persons in anything that required responsibility for the defense of the nation by bearing arms and fighting for the country.  That meant that only men were covered by the 14th Amendment as it related to immigrants.  That meant that if a foreign woman, an immigrant, wished to become naturalized she couldn’t unless she found a sympathetic naturalization judge.  Wives of immigrants couldn’t become citizens until their husband (the head of the household) became naturalized.  Their citizenship was derived from his.]

So in the light of this simple common sense insight to the 14th Amendment, could it be said that if Barack Obama had been born to his father’s Kenyan wife while she was visiting him in Honolulu, he would automatically be an American, -even though he would be a Kenyan citizen by birth to Kenyan parents?  Such a conclusion flies in the face of all common sense and has no logical basis to stand on.  And yet Americans do stand on it, oblivious to the absurdity of it.  That is the result of a misunderstanding that began over 100 years ago and continues strongly to this day.

What can fix this situation?  Only a new Supreme Court ruling that makes it clear that the ruling of over 100 years ago (Wong Kim Ark) does not declare that native birth alone bestows citizenship.  The idea that it does is so ingrained and universal in the American mind-set that no one in the government will take a sane approach to immigration facts because they’re unaware of them or afraid of political fall-out.

Along with the problem of U.S. births to foreigners, is the problem of the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama.  It’s predicated on the assumption that since he is a U.S. citizen, he is therefore eligible, regardless of the fact that the Constitution bars any and all who are not born to American citizens.  But an understanding of the 14th Amendment and the principles involved leads to the realization that on Obama’s father’s side he has no claim to U.S. citizenship regardless of birth in the U.S. because his father was merely a visiting foreigner and not a permanent resident.
U.S. citizenship could not be imparted to Obama by a foreign father because that doesn’t follow the natural law of patrilineal inheritance by which 98% of Americans have historically acquired their citizenship.  Nor could it be imparted by the 14th Amendment at birth since the father was strictly a foreign visitor, nor by the naturalization of an immigrant father since he was neither naturalized nor an immigrant.

Therefore his citizenship derives solely from his mother. But there is a problem with that from the standpoint of his presidency.  That is because American women were never constitutionally equal to men, and one result was that their federal citizenship rights were dubious or non-existent by comparison since they were in a legal position similar to children.   Fathers had nearly all the rights and wives had very few.  That was due to the religious history of the United States.

In the patriarchal Bible-oriented family the father was head of the household and the wife was subservient to him, as it is today in traditional Christian and Islamic families.  Therefore citizenship was passed from the father to the children, -not from the mother.  If an American woman had a child by a foreign man and they were not married, or the man abandoned her, then what would be the nationality of her child?  To answer that question, a law was passed in 1922 (The Cable Act) which retained American citizenship for American women who married foreigners, and that fact allowed the citizenship of women to pass to their children so that they would not be stateless persons.

That history of citizenship passing from the mother to the child is a history of a change brought about by Congress during the 20th Century.  One hundred years ago, before that law was written, Barack Obama would not have even been a United States citizen because his mother would have lost her citizenship by marrying a foreigner.  During that time (1907-1922) the only way that his father’s citizenship would not have been his only citizenship would have to have been by the 14th Amendment.
But the 14th Amendment would not have applied to him since he was not born to a father who was a member of American society by being a naturalized citizen nor even an un-naturalized legal immigrant.  Therefore he would have been a British subject and only a British subject.

Understand this; no one who at any time in U.S. history would not have been eligible to be the President, or who would not have even been an American citizen, is eligible to be the President today.  The parameters of eligibility have not changed.  Since 1789 no amendment has altered them, weakened them, nor diluted them to include the son of a foreign visitor rather than an American father.
To be the President the framers required three things , including maturity and residency, but before they were mentioned, they first stated a prohibition requiring the exclusion of all citizens who are not born as citizens, -who are not natural citizens by birth to citizens, who are not “natural born citizens”.  The only children, born of foreigners, who are eligible to be the President are those born after their immigrant parents, (married mother & father, or single / widowed mother) had completed the naturalization process.

That prohibition excludes citizens such as Barack Obama since he is not a natural citizen by birth, nor even a citizen by the 14th Amendment through his father’s subjection, but is a citizen only because of naturalization law covering birth by American mother of a child fathered by a foreigner.
If Obama had been born in the U.S. to an American father and a foreign mother, then under the patriarchal tradition of western civilization, if not all civilizations, then he would have been an American by birth even in the absence of any specific federal statute making it so.  It would be a fundamental human tradition that required no legislated act or judicial ruling, just like the right of men to marry, to vote, to own property and to shoulder the responsibility to bear arms to defend the nation.  Those rights and that responsibility are also unwritten because they’re also fundamental.

Obama’s citizenship by birth to an American mother instead of an American father is very significant because the patrilineal  tradition has not been erased from history, and probably has not been nullified by any tradition-destroying legislation or court ruling.  But even if it has, one thing is certain, and that is that American citizenship conferred via American parents is not the result of any U.S. law, nor clause in the Constitution, nor any amendment to it.

But U.S. citizenship involving a foreign father is not following natural law nor ancient tradition; -it is by permission, -by legislated act which allows that which is not natural to be legal.  And no one who’s citizenship depends on a legislated act fits the description of a natural born citizen because natural citizens are citizens automatically at birth and by birth to American parents, -not by concession of Congress nor decree of an amendment to the Constitution.
Therefore the election of Barack Obama was in violation of the clear prohibition of the Constitution stating that; “No person except a natural born Citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of the President.”

How was his election even possible?  It was by the misfeasance and non-feasance of the nominating committee of the Democrat Party headed by Nancy Pelosi, which struck from their eligibility certification document the previous reference to a candidate being eligible by meeting the requirements of the Constitution.
Going back many years and presidential races, the candidate certification declared the candidate to be constitutionally eligible, but that language was deliberately removed in 2008 in order to avoid making a false claim and signing a perjurous statement.
By that deception, the wool was pulled over the eyes of the party, the entire U.S. media, including opposition media, and many in Congress.  But unfortunately, Congress committed its own crime against the Constitution which is evident by the resolution that proclaimed John McCain, born in the Panama Canal zone, to be a natural born citizen by his birth to American citizens.

Therefore if they knew that presidential eligibility hinged on birth to American parents, then they also knew that Obama did not meet the test of the parental citizenship requirement,  -more inescapable evidence of misfeasance and non-feasance committed by both parties while they all remained silent as an ineligible candidate ran for and won the presidency.

They can’t now admit the truth because they would look as guilty as they are, and the American people have no way to have the guilty investigate themselves.  Who is there to ask the question: “Senator, what did you know and when did you know it?”.  There’s no one.  Not in Congress, nor the courts, nor the media.  It’s up to “We The People”.

a.r. nash  sept 2011
http://obama–nation.com       http://photobucket.com/obama_bc

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers