Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong
September 13, 2013 2 Comments
~concerning slavery and citizenship Pt 1.
I intend to prove that what everyone believes about U.S. citizenship is wrong. You could ask a thousand lawyers, judges and immigration officials one simple question and they will all give you the same answer; -one that does not reflect reality. That is because they do not understand the fundamental principles of citizenship. Those fundamentals were never taught to them because their teachers didn’t know them either, and on back for over a century.
I’ll show that native-born children of foreigners are not Americans based solely on where they were born. But first, to soften the tightly closed minds of all skeptics, I’ll show something else that you have believed all of your life but which is also false. Its falsity is clearly evident in the very words that are twisted to mean what everyone believes, -but which do not say what everyone assumes. I’m referring to slavery and involuntary servitude. Everyone has always assumed that they were banned in the United States, but in fact they were not.
They are still perfectly legal, under the required condition. But that condition does not apply to the federal government and all of the land it owns (-which is about half of the country). They both are fully legal in Washington D.C. and elsewhere throughout the states (mostly the Western States, -much of which the federal government owns.
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
No doubt, you’ve probably never read the amendment, or if you did, you didn’t take note of what it actually said because of the preconception of what it supposedly means. Well, it doesn’t mean what everyone assumes that it means, because it says quite plainly that they are only banned for the innocent. Innocent of what? I can only guess that first and foremost was the crime of owing a debt and not paying it back. Under that condition, I could have my own involuntary servant working off his debt to me. It would take him years to do so but not doing so is enormously unfair to me. So the amendment is probably all about innocence & guilt, debt & fairness.
Notice it doesn’t refer to the jurisdiction of The United States, i.e., “its jurisdiction”, but instead refers to “their jurisdiction”, which means it’s referring to the jurisdiction of the united STATES, -State jurisdiction, -not federal jurisdiction. By wording it in that manner, it excluded federal jurisdiction by not including it. That means that in perhaps half of the territory of the nation, both slavery and involuntary servitude have never been banned even conditionally.
Was Congress aware that it was allowing them to remain legal for Congressmen and all freemen in the District of Columbia and all free inhabitants of federal lands? Could those in Congress who wrote and passed it have been too stupid to understand the meaning of their own words? Would that possibility not be more alarming than the possibility that they did know?
So much for conventional wisdom and common conception about a very universally “known” subject. What everyone assumes is true about slavery and servitude is flat out wrong. And come to think of it, if you drop the word “involuntary” from servitude, you get the full legality of selling yourself to another, or selling your service for some period of time. Have you ever heard anyone say that that was perfectly legal in these United States?
These facts are kind of like learning that you were adopted. Belief is not necessarily in harmony with reality. And it is the same regarding the common belief about the origin of citizenship. That belief has been enormously and erroneously influenced by the common misconception springing from a Supreme Court case that ruled on the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. It falsely conflated the two different meanings of the word: “jurisdiction”.
The gist of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause: -three possibilities:
1.) “All persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
2.) “All persons born under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
3.) “All persons born within and under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
Plus, the imagined implication: “Only persons born within & under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States.”
What the entire legal establishment has been indoctrinated to believe is that there is no gigantic elephant of ambiguity in the room. They believe that the meaning of the amendment is clear and simple, (thanks to that misunderstood Supreme Court ruling in 1898) when that is utterly false. The words are extremely and overly simple but that results not in clarity but in the complete obscurity of its original meaning.
That is because in authoring the clause in constitutionally elegant and simple language, the amendment’s authors failed to realize that future generations would live in a world further and further removed from the viewpoint of the founding generation, and would have the ability to think about the meaning of their words in an altogether different fashion than they thought about them, as well as the words of their later 14th Amendment.
Future generations, in pursuit of a biased agenda, could see a possibility of meaning which the authors did not consider nor intend. They could attach a different meaning to the words because the words were inherently ambiguous, -except in the viewpoint of those lacking any awareness of what they meant when authored.
The champion of those people, it turned out, was a Justice of the United States Supreme Court who wrote the majority opinion in that 1898 case (U.S. v Wong Kim Ark). He committed a kind of constitutional treason in order to arrive at a conclusion that he had pre-decided in support of his bias (which was in opposition to the established policy of the United States government.)
That treason began with his blocking of the very thing that is fundamental to deciding constitutional matters, and that is to go back to the origin of an issue’s analysis in the congressional debates and the thinking of those who wrote and passed legislation dealing with it.
What did the words they authored mean to them? Whatever it was, -that is the meaning that they still possess today. But that Justice must have known what the words of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause meant when written and didn’t like what they meant, and was determined to abuse his power by changing what they meant. And that is what he did, -big-time, beginning with prohibiting any presentation of the facts surrounding the authoring and discussion of the amendment in the Congress that authored it and passed it thirty years earlier.
He knew that one of its authors had explained what their chosen words meant, -namely that they meant the same thing as the words chosen in the authoring of its immediate predecessor, -the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It declared that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are citizens of the United States.
That co-author answered when ask: “What does ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States mean?” (-that being the only change of language from its predecessor) and he replied that: “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means not being subject to any foreign power;…-that’s what it means.
But that judge, in charge of authoring the majority opinion in the case regarding the unsettled meaning of the 14th Amendment, (Justice Horace Gray) did not allow that statement, nor others like it, to be considered in the favor of the government’s position of opposition to a lower court ruling which it lost when it ruled on the citizenship (or lack thereof) of a young man who the government had blocked from reentering the United States after returning from a visit to China.
His reentry was blocked on the basis that he was not an American citizen regardless of having been born in the United States (San Francisco) to Chinese nationals who had emigrated to and settled in America.
The conundrum before the court was the question of whether or not the lower court had ruled correctly in overturning the established policy of the executive branch which either was following the actual known and intended meaning of the amendment when authored, or was violating it.
That was not a question that Justice Gray would allow to be considered because the answer would destroy his chosen ruling. Instead, he twisted the meaning of “it” (–the amendment’s meaning) to not mean what was meant when it was written, but its actual ambiguous words. Did the government policy violate the literal words of the amendment?
By disallowing what those words meant as authored and passed, he made himself and his companions on the bench the ones to decide what they meant instead of the authors. That was his almost covert way to subvert and overthrow the indisputable and widely known meaning of the amendment’s actual language, which is: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.”
Having avoided the original meaning of those words from being considered in the case, he then proceeded in the written ruling to pervert the meaning of the amendment’s language by substituting a different meaning to the otherwise clearly understood and unambiguous phraseology related to “subjection” and “jurisdiction”. That is wherein lies his tactic of assigning a perverted meaning to the ambiguous and multi-use word “jurisdiction”.
A vicious dog may be your personal property and therefore housed within the jurisdiction of your home, but that does not make it subject to your jurisdiction when it attacks a visitor while you ineffectually order it to stop. Although it is within your property boundaries or jurisdiction, it is not subject to your jurisdiction, -to your authority, because it is subject instead to it instincts. See the ambiguity? Gray sure did and drove a Mac truck through it.
Rather than contrast, on the one hand, the territorial jurisdiction mentioned in the sentence that followed the citizenship clause, -within which each State is bounded by its borders (“any person within its jurisdiction”) with the sovereign authority of the federal government via its laws, policies, and court rulings on the other hand, he instead deliberately and deceitfully conflated them as if there was no distinction between direct authority and geographical boundaries.
I say “deliberately” because he could not have been so stupid as to have done it ignorantly. After all, he entered Harvard College at age 13.
He purposefully worded it in a very deceitful manner, claiming that clearly the one cannot be more comprehensive than the other, and therefore by a blind leap of anti-logic, they must be equivalent since one is not more important than the other. In other words, territoriality (birth location) provides the fulfillment of whatever “subjection” is (rather than obligation & obedience). Let’s see,… your dog is not more important than your cat therefore they are essentially equivalent since they both are four legged carnivores.
His lies did not stop there. He went on to distort and re-write American law history proclaiming in effect the supremacy of British common law over American enacted statutes regarding citizenship as if the United States were still attached by an umbilical cord to British monarchical Church & State jurisprudence. That was a vital element in his perversion because by it he could claim that American citizenship was directly equivalent to the subjectship of British subjects.
That equivalency was the ball bearing on which his entire “final opinion” was perched because under the supreme monarchical authority of the dictator of Britain, almost everyone born to anyone living in Britain or his foreign territories belonged to him for life, whether fathered by an Englishman or an alien. They were all his subjects because their fathers were subject to him and his government.
That autocratic system was rejected by the creators of our nation. They followed instead the law of nations which is based not on royal authority to determine citizenship but on the Natural Rights principles of Natural Law.
By those principles, your child is born possessing, by inheritance, your membership in your nation. Born into it. Government has no authority to change that based on nothing other than the location of your mother when you were delivered. The government is not the owner of the children of its citizens or those of foreigners visiting or residing here. Rather, parents own their own children. That is an unalienable right.
The thing about unalienable natural rights is that they are unconditional. Like unconditional surrender, there are no “ifs, ands, or buts” involved. They involve instead incontestable individual freedoms, -as well as obligations toward others, -how they are and are not to be treated, -which includes how citizens are to be viewed and treated by fellow citizens working for big Government.
Big Government, -forever too big for its britches, viewed itself for nearly a century as having the authority to strip naturalized citizens of their American citizenship if they returned to live in their homeland. Many Congresses wrote statutes to that effect generation after generation, and everyone assumed that it was following its constitutionally ascribed power over naturalization, but in fact, it possessed no such constitutional authority whatsoever.
Finally, after four generations, someone sued the government when their United States citizenship was “cancelled” by the most recent version of the statute. What the Supreme Court ruled was noticed by essentially no one outside of the Attorney General’s office, but it carried enormous implications as to the nature of citizenship.
What it ruled was that the actions of American citizens cannot be construed by the executive branch as being expatriating (meaning self-canceling of one’s own U.S. citizenship) if the actions were not openly demonstrative of such a desire. Previously, various actions were deemed by the State Department and Justice Department as being self-expatriation, including living for two years or longer back in one’s foreign homeland, voting in foreign elections, serving in foreign governments or military, obtaining foreign citizenship, and marrying a foreign husband even if one was a natural born American woman.
All of those laws over all of those generations were rendered null and void in effect, -or I should say, unconstitutional, since it was up to the Attorney General to acknowledge the significance of their opinion and its sway over United States Law and policy.
The gist of their holding was that American citizenship is unconditional as long as one does not commit acts that are clear indications of being anti-American. (-such as waging war against the United States, or shooting over a dozen fellow soldiers in a dining hall, -but then that could be viewed as merely being anti-American military policy, which isn’t the same, hence no move to strip Major Hasan of his U.S. citizenship)
So not only is the nature of natural American citizens beyond government authority, but even the citizenship given to foreigners who are either born on U.S. soil or are naturalized by process. That is because of two fundamental principles of America philosophy. The first is that citizenship, once given, cannot be rescinded by government choice. The second is that all citizenship is natural citizenship no matter how acquired (with the exception of the provisional citizenship of certain foreign-born alien-fathered minors).
Thus all naturalized citizens are viewed as not just being equal to natural citizens but as actually being natural citizens. That “doctrine of citizenship equivalency” was inherited from the British which viewed all alien-fathered but British-born children as being “natural born subjects” even though they were in reality alien-born subjects.
The thing about being a natural subject or natural citizen is that your nationality is not something that you possess, but something that you are. Translated, that means you are an American, -a United States citizen, rather than merely the possessor of American-ness and United States citizenship. Having and being are two very different things.
One cannot take away something that you are. The problem that the ignorant men who populated the Congress for generations suffered from was the un-American view that citizenship is something that one possesses, -like legal adoption.
That was never true of natural citizens but since Congress had authority only over foreigners and their quest for American citizenship, they had no focus on the 97% of the American population who were outside of their naturalization authority because they were citizens by nature, and not by law. Their citizenship was unconditional, beyond the authority of Congress, independent of law and government. Their national membership had no strings attached, -was automatic and irrevocable.
The unconditional natural citizenship of the 97% did not stand in contrast to the citizenship of the naturalized and the U.S.-born of immigrants because by the doctrine of citizenship equivalency, those former foreigners also were natural citizens. So like the 97%, their citizenship could not be rescinded due to congressional conditions being violated. Once given, citizenship was not revocable. The opposite policy could be illustrated by the examples of adoption, and being “an Indian giver”.
An adopted child (like a naturalized citizen) is a legal child, -not a natural child. Its family membership is not unconditional from before birth, (unlike the natural children). A government may or may not have a policy that allows parents to rescind the adoption and return the ill-behaved child to the orphanage from whence it came. America, as a nation, has no such policy toward its adopted members. They became via the American doctrine, natural children of the nation and thus are indistinguishable from those born of citizens.
Other nations do not have that doctrine and thus have reserved the authority to rescind the naturalization of foreigners who engage in certain crimes against society or the nation. We Americans can’t do that, and never have. We aren’t “Indian givers”.
The customs of certain American native tribes were quite different from the descendents of European settlers. One must suspect that one of them was the principle of permanent ownership of property. By such a principle, if one is being benevolent toward another, he may present him or her *with what to us would appear like a gift, but to them was merely an indefinite loan. Think of it as money that one needs, and that need is met by another. Was that money a gift? Or was it a loan? It depends on the customs and culture of the society in which it occurs. To the Indian tribes that had a custom of permanent ownership; it would undoubtedly be a loan which could be revoked in the future.
* The spell-checking Microsoft Word analysis tells me that “him or her” is incorrect and I should change it to “him or she”. It recognizes no possibility that it might be wrong, and yet all that I’ve known about the English language all of my life says that it, the supposed authority, is in fact completely wrong. Which do I go by? The authority of another which makes no sense or by what I’ve always known to be true?
That example shows how authority can get even basic things completely wrong, and cannot be unquestioningly followed.
The Statists in big Government felt for generations that what they gave, they could take back being as it was their gift and they were its permanent owner, -like the Indian-giver custom. The Supreme Court finally set them straight and kicked them out of the driver’s seat. They were no longer in charge and no longer owned the gift that they had given away. It thereafter belonged solely to the citizen and not to the government. They could not take it back, nor cancel, revoke, rescind or restrict it. They were out of the picture because American citizenship does not belong to Big Government; it belongs solely to the sovereign American citizens who created and perpetuate their government.
by Adrien Nash Sept 2013