An Erroneous Definition of Natural Born Citizen
The Logic Error of One Natural Born Citizen “Definition”
(-& the nebulous history of an illegitimate President)
The community of constitutionist who are cognizant of the constitutional lack of eligibility of Barack Obama to be President are of two minds when it comes to the definition of the words that make him ineligible. Some believe that a “natural born Citizen” is simply anyone with citizen parents. Others believe that it describes anyone born in America to American parents. How did this divergence come about? It’s the result of an unrecognized logic error. That error is centered on the description given by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel in his tome “The Law of Nations (1758) which was a work drawn mostly from the principles of natural law that was read by many of the American founders, and informed their understanding of the principles on which national and international law is based.
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; “
Understand this, he was not establishing a legal definition because he had no authority by which to declare the legal meaning of anything. Rather, he was presenting a common sense observation of reality and that observation was no more than a description, not a definition. He was not a Moses or a Jesus or a Pope or a Mohammed of Law who was dispensing an all-sufficient, all-inclusive & exclusive delineation of who could legally be described as a natural citizen of a nation.
His description covered practically all natural citizens, -the 99%, because all but a tiny fraction of citizens are born within their own country to parents living there and not living or traveling abroad. Consider that “the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself…”except via domestically born children. The numbers of those born abroad were so insignificant that they were essentially irrelevant to his general description. But a certain ineligible President, and nothing else, has made their distinctiveness relevant today.
So when he describes citizen children, -born within their parents’ country, a domestic birth location is not stated as a requirement in order to be a “natural born” citizen. A domestic birth was merely stated in describing where 99% of them are born. It naturally was included in his description, but it did not serve to limit citizenship to only those children born where children naturally are born. Without the use of the word “ONLY” no other conclusion can logically be drawn. If he had said; “Natural born citizens are only those born in the country…” then the term would have been described with a limit surrounding it. That would have been a definition. But he didn’t.
Notice in Vattel’s statement that he does not repeat the appellation “natural born citizen” in speaking of the typical members of a nation, instead we have only; “parents who are citizens, children of the citizens,
a father who is a citizen”. Do not fail to notice this sentence: “In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;”. One can legitimately call that a definition because it is crystal clear and unequivocal. One must be born to a citizen father, period. No exceptions. The word “necessary” is declarative. But instead it is not a requirement that includes any consideration of where one need be born. He did not declare that one must be born within their nation’s borders, only that they must be born to a citizen father.
Also misconstrued by a leap of false logic resulting in a false deduction was the meaning of Judge Waite’s words in the Minor v Happersett ruling regarding the nature of citizenship. Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
This statement could have easily omitted the last sentence and the meaning would have been the same. Throwing in additional appellations by which such citizens can be called, does not “define” those appellations. Such additional terms are unnecessary and superfluous to the definition of the “never doubted” citizenship status of those children born domestically to citizen parents. They “became…citizens also” That description was in regard to “citizens” only.
Understand this; no supplemental descriptive term that is not an integral part of a definition can be logically twisted into being that which was being describe. It is merely an added, unnecessary appendage. What was being described? Natural native citizens, -they being children born in the land of their citizen parents. Realize this fact; all natural citizens are born of citizen parents, and all native citizens [not "native-born" citizens] are born domestically to citizen parents. But all natural citizens are not also native citizens because natural citizens are defined only as those born to citizen parents, -with no reference to where they entered the world.
So all native citizens are those born to citizens in America, while all natural citizens are those born to citizens anywhere on earth. Justice Waite was saying that those who were natural native citizens by birth to citizens in America are undoubtedly natural born citizens. No question. But he had no obligation or reason to declare that they alone are natural citizens and not others who happened to be born abroad, because Virginia Minor was not born outside of the United States. She was an American female born in America. One of the 99%.
There is one more very important fact to be aware of. And that is that the term “natural born citizen” could have and would have existed regardless of whether or not America had a President, a King, or a ruling Senate. It is not a term invented for the purpose of describing the citizenship of Presidents. It is not like a Siamese twin concept intimately linked to the Presidency. Presidents are irrelevant to its existence. Therefore the naturally wise view that a President must be both domestically born and have American parents in order to insure the greatest degree of natural allegiance to America is a view that is not derived from the reality of what the words meant and still mean since they had no origin in considerations of what would make the most assuredly loyal President. Instead their origin had no connection to the concept of who should be President since they preceded the existence and contemplation of that office.
That description exists as a discreet sub-category of “born citizens”. Born citizens come in two types; one is the “native-born” children of immigrant foreigners. The other is the children of natural citizens. They also are citizens themselves naturally, and automatically, and independent of any law or policy of government. Thus to use the term “a born citizen” is to unavoidedly be speaking ambiguously. Normally that ambiguity doesn’t matter, (99% of the time), but sometimes it does. One of those times is in regard to who is eligible to be President.
Alexander Hamilton submitted the recommendation that the President must be a born citizen, but that language was recognized as being ambiguous, and therefore it was changed to exclude those “born citizens” with foreign fathers. They could never be called “natural citizens” of any nation because they were not born in nor subject to the jurisdiction of their father’s home country. Their birth was outside the pattern of natural law since they were born with conflicting nationalities. Therefore their allegiance solely to America and the Constitution could not be viewed as absolutely certain and unconflicted.
Therefore the framers of the eligibility clause added the prohibition against any mere “born citizen” being qualified to be President. Instead his citizenship must be natural citizenship derived from his parents, by being born to citizens, and not derived from the benevolence of the government toward sons born to foreigners and naturalized at birth.
He must be a “born citizen” by birth, and not simply a “born citizen” at birth. The importance is not placed on his place of birth but on his parentage. For the naturalized born citizen, a place of birth within America is essential. But for the natural born citizen it is irrelevant because that which makes him a natural American is his American parents. But that which makes a naturalize born citizen an American is the permission of the government. It’s not an unalienable right as it is for natural citizens. Their natural membership in the nation is by natural law, not by human law.
How does this relate to Obama’s ineligibility? It means that the founding fathers didn’t care where a President was born, only that regardless of where he was born and raised, he must have an American father and have lived in the United States for 14 years. If a candidate was born to an American father, then his loyalty to America could be counted on, no matter where he was born because native American men were different from European and British, and Russian, and Asian and Latin-American men. They were born in a New World and a new nation and it brought forth a whole new way of thinking about one’s relationship to their government.
Their children would absorb that independent way of thinking from their father and not view Kings and Potentates as their natural rulers. Americans had no Kings, no royalty, no nobility, no titles, no aristocratic class of citizens above the rest. Americans would not obsequiously bow to any man, -be he Pope or King. American children around the world would come to think just like their American fathers. They would have no allegiance to any ruler, nor government, nor form of government except that of their true homeland, America. It’s history and philosophy would be inculcated into them by their American teachers, mothers, and fathers, as it is today in every home that cares about their children and their country.
So Obama’s impossible-to-prove native birth does not make him a natural born citizen, nor would a foreign birth make him ineligible if his mother had been a few months older when he was born. But she was slightly too young for her U.S. citizenship to have been conferred upon her son via the principle of “derivative citizenship” if her son was born outside the U.S. That is what I’ve read more than once, and which I’ve never seen refuted, though I’m unfamiliar with what statute was the basis for that claim.
Also unknown and unresearched is the fact which I uncovered that apparently indicates that the policy of the INS and probably the State Dept. in 1961 was to follow an age-old tradition by which American women who married foreign men were expatriated, (lost their citizenship) -regardless of that policy being a violation of their unalienable right of citizenship (which is beyond the right of government to rescind, but then women weren’t viewed as being endowed with the same equal social, political, and religious position that men held).
Instead the INS website Interpretations page * states that the position of the INS would be to continue to follow the Naturalization Act of 1907 which expatriates American women who married foreign men, -regardless of a Supreme Court ruling (Afroyim v Rusk) which, by inference, made that policy unconstitutional.** That ruling wasn’t until 1967, 6 years after Obama’s mother married his father.
So in 1961 he was not a citizen via his father’s citizenship, nor his mother’s if she had been viewed as a British subject of the United Kingdom & Colonies by the INS, nor via the 14th Amendment which only applied to children born to legal “Green Card” immigrants, -not foreign students.
If she was viewed as having lost her citizenship, then Obama Jr. eventually became an American through his mother but only after she divorced her foreign husband and was repatriated. But, get this, she remarried in 1966, -before the Supreme Court ruling occurred so she may have been expatriated a second time, along with her son I imagine, since his citizenship was derived from hers. Then on top of that he was adopted by the new foreign husband and became a derivative Indonesian citizen, as did, I assume, his mother. Was his citizenship regained for a second time sometime before his mother divorced for the second time in 1980? What was the view of the INS office in Hawaii regarding expatriation by marriage in 1961?
Did they later adhere to what the Attorney General stated in 1969 was still the official policy of the Immigration Service even though a federal court had ruled against it? Did Obama go from being a British subject to an American naturalized citizen, to an Indonesian citizen and back to an American naturalized citizen again?
No matter what the policy was in 1961, constitutional or not, what is clear is that the children born to American women married to foreign men were treated quite differently from the children born to American men and foreign wives because women have historically been treated differently. The principle feature of that difference is that one’s citizenship was derived from that of the father, -the head of the household, meaning the wife and children, and it was the preferred policy of the executive branch to avoid dual-citizenship resulting from marriage and parenthood. This being the tradition and history of the U.S. Immigration Service, it’s certain that natural citizenship was not viewed as being connected to the citizenship of one’s mother, but solely to one’s father, -unless he was dead or they had divorced.
These facts don’t paint a picture of one who is a natural American or a natural anything since everything about his origin was wrong from birth, whether constitutionally, diplomatically or socially speaking , and that his history and life has gone mostly unknown, unexplained, unclarified, secret, and statutory, including the lack of any physical proof of his parents marriage, wedding, or honeymoon.
Their divorce record is available but page 11 of 14 is “missing”. Was it a copy of his original birth documentation? “Obama himself hints that his father and mother’s wedding may not have been properly documented. Obama writes in his memoir, ‘How and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore. There’s no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it’s not even clear that people back in Kansas were informed’”.
So he is not only not a constitutional President but he is a citizen via the most convoluted path of government policies possible, and not via natural law. His unnatural citizenship has as much clearly visible definition as the outline of a ghost .
by a.r. nash feb. 2012 http://obama–nation.com
**The viewpoint…that expatriation by marriage remains a constitutional basis for citizenship loss despite the decision in Afroyim, shall continue to represent the Service position, notwithstanding a per curiam decision 25j/ by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which withdrew its earlier decision in Rocha v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 25k/ and in effect found section 3 of the 1907 enactment to be unconstitutional by reason of Afroyim. 25m/ ( Added )