Natural-born subject vs. Natural born citizen; the stark differences revealed
May 8, 2014 5 Comments
An Allegorical History of Citizenship and the appearance of “natural-born subject”.
Throughout all human history, a man passed his status to his children. Sons of warriors had a right to become warriors also one day. A son of a priest had a right to become a priest also one day, -same with craftsmen and scribes and nobles. They inherited their status in life and that status included membership.
It ranged from group membership, to voting membership in one’s town or city. Those city members who had the right to vote were known as citizens. Many did not have the right to vote since they were destitute and/ or illiterate. They had no substantial financial stake in the outcome of the matters voted on.
When time passed and all or most native freemen were allowed to vote because most were educated to some degree, a decision had to be made as to whether or not non-native freemen would be allowed to vote on the matters of a jurisdiction which was not their home, and may not be in the future should they decide to leave. Their home was across the border in the neighboring kingdom.
A standard rule had to be established to determine which non-native freemen would be allowed to vote and which would not. Such a rule looked first at how long a foreigner had been domiciled among the natives, and next, at whether he had been like a hermit or had been a member of the society and thus had come to understand its values and agendas, including its faith. Had he assimilated or shown an interest in doing so?
If one met the criteria of the established rule then one would be admitted to the right of citizenship and also be allowed to vote on the society’s issues. Then he was a member. A fellow citizen.
But the issue of his membership had at least one limitation on it, and that was that he was not allowed the top security position of the city. Such a post might include possession of the key to the city armory which contained all of the firearms, rounds & gunpowder, as well as portable cannons and cannonballs.
If a traitor were to surrender that key to his own invading countrymen in the dead of the night, the city could be taken without a shot fired. That would be disaster for the all the families of the city as they would become vassals or servants of their conquerors. So that possibility had to be avoided by only entrusting the key to a native of the city.
So the rule of inclusion for acceptable domiciled non-natives had to single out which citizens could possess the key and which otherwise-equal citizens could not. So labels had to be attached to define the different types of citizens.
The label to describe the natives was based on the obvious membership rule of nature by referring to nature in labeling them as: natural members or natural citizens. They were all native-fathered citizens. That small minority who had been foreigners but had joined the city’s society as assimilated new members and citizens were non-native citizens. Their children, being raised with unknown loyalties and bonds, at maturity would be foreigner-fathered citizens.
So there were native citizens, foreigner citizens, and foreigner-fathered citizens. Since some of the foreigners’ sons might have been born within the city and could thus be described as “native-born” (albeit not as true natives) they needed to be distinguished from the true natives when it came to that one position of vital trust, because they may have secretly been raised to not be loyal to the city but to the father’s ambitious homeland which had strong but patient designs to take the city. [consider the amazing parallels to the Ukraine and the Crimea]
What label would need to be used to differentiate such “natives” from the sons of natives? Well there would be a right way and a wrong way to label people. The wrong way would be in a manner that could be taken as a slight, intended or not. That would be in labeling those who were excluded, either as non-native (unacceptable due to ambiguity ~born of or born within?) or foreigner-fathered citizens.
It would be better to not employ such a term as foreigner-fathered, or alien-fathered and instead to only mention those who were eligible; they being the natural citizens. “Only a natural citizen of Citizenville shall be eligible to hold the key” Problem solved.
The Calvin Analogy
A sister city deep in the interior of the same kingdom had a different situation than that of Citizenville. It was that of public education. All citizens of Citizentown who paid taxes could vote, and they voted to raise their own taxes to pay for public schools. Those who could not vote, if natives, could send their children to the new schools, but what of those who were not natives, -who were merely domiciled aliens who had not become citizens and thus had no obligation to pay taxes nor any right to vote? What would be allowed or not for their children?
They were the inside outsiders. Why should the insiders have to pay to educate the children of outsiders? The rule for admittance was that a child had to be born of native subjects of the Prince of the city. That rule was understood to exclude many children unless something could be done on their behalf to alter the rule, -or to reinterpret its meaning. What could be done?
To come to a resolution, the Prince of the city ordered that it be debated among the citizenry. That required that people have labels for different types of children and inhabitants so they could intelligently discuss and know what others were talking about. That required that non-ambiguous terms be created.
The children of native subjects were “natural subjects”.
The children of foreigners were in one or the other of two groups. One was those born of the fathers who had advanced from outsider to insider by being remade into a new but equal rule-made “natural” subject (subject-ized, citizen-ized, natural-ized) by a qualifying length of residency and by swearing an oath of loyalty to the Prince.
The other group was those born in the city but of foreign fathers who remained as outsiders, having not been made into new “natural” members of the city by the natural-izing rule and oath.
They had no right to attend the school of the legitimate members of the city, -the natives, and those outsiders made into insiders. So to get around the rule, a trick of logic was employed by ignoring the admittance requirement of birth to members and instead focusing on what they had in common with all other city children.
They also were born within the city, and they also were born subject to the Prince so they were therefore naturally his subjects all of their life from the day of their birth.
Although they were not his natural subjects, they were born as his subjects because their foreign fathers were subject to him via submission to his rule and obedience to his laws. So in that sense, they also were born of men who were his subjects, -even if only so while within his city.
So they were born of subjects and born within his city. Guess what? That also describes the children of his natural subjects. They also were subject born and “native-born”.
If everyone just focused on those two facts and would overlook the fact that they were alien-born and not member-born, then they could be said to comply with the school admission rule. The Prince liked the idea and so decreed: “Make it so!”
From then on, all children of foreigners were viewed based only on where they were born, -and since no foreigner living in the city was seeking to overthrow it and thus was obviously in subjection to the Prince, -that fact was simply an automatic “given”. Thus the only question left was: “were you born in the Prince’s city?”
If so, then you are a member of his city and therefore qualified to attend the public schools. If you were born subject via birth to a law-abiding father, then you are were a member of the city even it you were alien-born.
As long as you were subject-born by being city-born then you are considered an insider. After all, you were born that way (according to the new interpretation and focus). You are a born subject and that’s enough.
And in fact, if we now only recognize your relationship to the Prince and not your relationship to the city (through your outsider father), and your relationship to the Prince is the same as it is for the natives, them we should come up with a label to combine both kinds of children under one umbrella term, -something like… natural & born subjects; or… natural / born subjects; or… natural-born subjects.
For the sake of simplicity, let’s just go with the last one. It’s so much simpler than always having to write out: “All of the Prince’s child subjects who are natural subjects, and all of His subject city-born children…”. His “natural-born subjects” wins hands-down.
Now let’s parse the meaning and origin of the terms used in Britain and America to describe the various types of subjects / citizens.
“Natural subject = one born of natives, -their father’s status and membership having been transmitted to them automatically, including his national political character or subjectship (nationality).
“Born subject” = a vague ambiguous term by itself since it conveys nothing regarding origin. Native father? Or foreign father? But it does describe an over-all class involving more than one possible origin; both of which are born as subjects. It includes the alien-born who would not appreciate that label, so by dropping “alien” and combining “born” with “natural”, you get a new hybrid designation; “natural-born subject“.
It includes two kinds of subjects. Those who are native & naturally subject and those who have no right to be subjects but are deemed to be subjects anyway for the sake of social cohesion and social fairness. After all, they are members of society even though not by ancestry, inheritance, blood, or right.
The same arrangement applied in the colonies as well, -until the Revolution. Then it was thrown out, -or at least its bastardized hybrid terminology was. Those who understood the principles of the revolution began to avoid using the word “subject” altogether and instead adopted the word “citizen” -which implies member, -not servant. They had no use for the British combination of natural and born in “natural-born”. They never attached it to the word “citizen” since it had no purpose at either the State level or the national level, but for opposite reasons.
In the States, both the children of natives and the U.S. born children of foreigners were automatically deemed to be citizens by the established nationality policy that had been in place under British rule for over a century.
But the new national government was not a descendant of the British. It had never been a colony and so it had no colonial nor common law history to determine its policies. It was totally free to adopt a new and ancient policy; -that of Natural Law alone. It was not chained by tradition to having to ascribe American membership based on birth location instead of parentage, -and so it did not.
If you were born of Americans then you were an American also. But if you were born of aliens, or an alien father, then you were an alien just like him, -born subject to his foreign sovereign through him. If so, you were not eligible to possess the key to the armory (the position of Commander of all U.S. military forces).
John Jay, a founder and future first Chief Justice, advised Gen. Washington to allow none but “a natural born citizen” to assume that power. (underlined by him) That is at the heart of the eligibility issue.
Does “natural-born subject” equal “natural born citizen”?
That question and the juxtaposition of those two terms leads to the answer. There are three hugely significant differences between them, with the first being that citizens are not subjects of monarchs but are free, individual, self-governing defenders of their republican homeland.
Second is the absence of a hyphen. That is very significant since they are inserted to bind two words together in a sort of unitary phrase. Such a phrase can express a literal reality or merely a legal concept or designation, -or even a term of legal artifice (a fiction of law).
When and why they are added is always a matter of perceived necessity for the sake of clarity or for the sake of coining a new concept from the separate meanings of two or more words. So if a hyphen is present, put there by highly intelligent, educated, knowledgeable men, you can be darn sure that it needs to be there for a very good reason.
Here’s a poor example: “He seems like a very young doctor, pretty-young wouldn’t you say? Yes, he’s pretty-young alright. He’s one pretty-young doctor for sure. But the other one is a pretty young doctor. She’s awfully pretty and she’s young but not that young.”
“Pretty young doctor” has no use for a hyphen, while the other use does. So it is also with “natural-born” and “natural born”. Not the same message intended by the two and their difference. That is further revealed by the third difference.
With “natural-born subject” having a hyphen but no underline, it must be understood to be a unitary term, a single unit designation for all subjects of essentially all stripes. It is therefore not a literal term but a catch-all legal term, -a single unit phrase that is not the sum total of its parts, but is what it is almost without regard for its word parts. An umbrella term. Inclusive, mufti-faceted, and taken as a whole and not as three separate words.
That being the case, one cannot underline one of the words as if it can be emphasized individually. There has never been written nor published such versions as “natural-born subject”, or “natural-born subject” or “naturalborn subject”. But with “natural born citizen” either word can be underlined.
They are not attached to each other, -not by a hyphen nor by implication. They are each attached solely to the noun they modify; “citizen“. That makes them free from each other and movable. Examples are “a natural born-citizen”, “a born natural citizen” (as apposed to a natural citizen by natural-ize-a-tion).
So there you have the differences. The Obama defenders want everyone to believe that the two terms are like identical twins; “if you’ve seen the one then you’ve seen the other”, but in fact they are not like identical twins but like fraternal twins. They are not of the same egg, even if they look similar.
The Olsen twins were assumed to be identical, and yet they were fraternal twins. Not the same. Distinctly notable differences, even though perceiving the differences might be nearly impossible for someone outside of their inner circle. But like a mother’s eye, a sharp mind can perceive the difference between the English version and the separate and original American version. It’s a version that rejects calling the alien-born children of alien fathers “natural citizens”, or by the extended doubly-reinforced version: “natural born citizens”.
by Adrien Nash May 2014 obama–nation.com