Native-born Foreigners & Foreign-born Natives

(an unnatural Mulligan stew / Pina Colada President)

The legitimacy of the Presidency of Barack Obama is dependent on whether or not he is constitutional qualified for the office.  And that depends on the meaning of two words, which are: Natural, and Native.  Two strong misconceptions surround the Constitution’s terminology of what kind of citizen is eligible to be President.  The Constitution declares; “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President”
That language shows that they were describing two separate groups of American citizens.  One was the native inhabitants of the colonies who were American by birth, and the other were the foreign-born who had become naturalized immigrants.

Anyone who had come to America from a foreign land, including Great Britain, who wished to become a citizen of the state in which he settled, still had to undergo a naturalization procedure after his character background was checked and cleared.
Any naturalized foreigner who had lived in America for 14 years before the adoption of the Constitution and was 35 years old could be President.  That group of foreign-born citizens had endured the hardship, danger, and sacrifice of the Revolution and proven their loyalty to their adopted country, and so were deserving of the public trust.  The honor and position that they had earned was not unjustly denied to them.

The other group of citizens, -the natural born citizens, was made up of the sons of the naturalized Americans and all of the sons born to the colonial natives who were newly mass-naturalized by the Declaration of Independence, -which turned all British-American subjects from being British to being Americans only, (they were still citizens of their home state but had become also citizens of the new confederate union).
They were natural citizens because they were born to citizens, -they were natural Americans because they were born to Americans.  But what of those born in exceptional circumstances; -what was to be their status and were they to be eligible to be the President?  The answer depends on the definitions of “natural born”, “native”, and “native-born”.  Many, including some “experts”, erroneously conflate those terms even though they actually carry separate distinct meanings.
To understand the misconceptions by which a constitutionally ineligible candidate was allowed to run for and win the presidency we must look at the meanings of those words in order to understand who is a natural American citizen.

NATIVE: (it has many descriptions, the main ones being);  Innate, belonging to a country or locality by birth, -not a foreigner or immigrant; of or characteristic of the indigenous inhabitants of a region; a person born as an indigenous inhabitant of a region, as distinguished from an outsider, invader, colonist; a permanent resident as opposed to a visitor; belonging to one’s nature or constitution, -not artificial or acquired.

Nature/Natural: -they are defined in the many ways with which everyone is familiar and one of them is synonymous with that which is native.
A definition not found is “native-born”.  While its meaning is rather self-evident, it has been incorrectly conflated to be synonymous with native and natural when it is not since its meaning, while closely related, carries a meaning that omits one of the two main meanings of Native.  As a result, a human could fit one description but not the other, and therefore could be a native-born person who is not a native as well as a native who is not native-born.  One can be one without being the other because they convey two distinctly different denotations.  One is related to territory, geography, boundaries and borders, while the other is related to one’s nature, one’s blood and ancestry.  An unusual hypothetical example will serve to demonstrate the difference.

Let’s assume that the native population of the wilderness of north-western Canada is Eskimo.  Across the western border is Alaska and the isolated city of Fairbanks.  A Canadian census worker is sent to record the native population in that area and she hears of an unusual occurrence.  A pair of Eskimo twin sisters were pregnant at the same time.  One had a complicated pregnancy and so she was flown across the border to the Fairbanks hospital where her child was safely delivered by an obstetrician who was also pregnant, along with her twin sister.  The doctor flew to Canada with the new mother and baby in order to deliver her twin sister’s baby also.  While there she went into premature labor and gave birth herself.  Later that day she heard that her sister also gave birth that same day.
So you have four babies, each with a unique birth circumstance.  From the perspective of the census worker, one is a native-born native while its cousin is a foreign-born native.  The doctor’s child is a native-born foreigner, while her sister’s child is a foreign-born foreigner.
Which one is eligible to be the Chief of the Eskimos?
Answer: only the natives.  They are Eskimos by blood and are natural members of the tribe.  One who was merely “native-born” is not eligible because being an Eskimo is not the result of artificial abstract constructs involving imaginary borders.  Instead it is purely a result of nature, -one’s native nature, -not one’s birth location.
If a child’s parents are not natives, can the child be a native?  If a child’s father is a foreigner, can the child be a true, pure, natural native regardless of its native-birth location?  Clearly not.  The obstetrician’s child was not an Eskimo although born in their territory.  If the doctor had been an Eskimo also, but the father, her husband, were an American, would his off-spring be a pure-blooded natural Eskimo, or something else?   Clearly, something else.  That something else is known as a hybrid.  It is neither this thing nor that thing but is half-and-half.  As a result it cannot be described as either one.
If someone asks for a glass of pineapple juice, and someone else asks for a glass of coconut juice, and the two get mixed up, it will be quickly noticed because they are distinctly different.  But if someone combines both juices together what do you have?  Coconut juice, or pineapple juice?  You get neither.  The result is neither this nor that but is a hybrid mixture.  That mixture is unnatural because it wasn’t produced by nature.  It’s artificial, -it’s man-made.  It’s humans combining things of distinctly different natures.  That’s the nature of the citizenship of Barack Obama.

It is neither the natural product of this thing (British), nor that thing (American); instead it a man-made-combination hybrid of two distinctly different nationalities.  In the political realm of nationality it is an unnatural thing and can’t produce a natural native of either nation.
Not being born in the British Empire does not result in his being non-British; -he is British via inheriting the political nature, -the political blood and status of his father.  Being born within the abstract political boundaries that define the entity known as the United States does not make him a natural native of America, especially since his father was not even an American immigrant, but was merely a Visa Card visitor
The only accurate way to describe and define him is as a native-born hybrid, a foreign-born hybrid, native-born foreigner (born to foreign parents via the U.S. INS traditional policy of “expatriation by marriage which substitutes an American woman’s citizenship with that of her foreign husband’s); or a foreign born foreigner.

The one way that he can’t be described is as a natural born American because his father was not a native member of the American nation.  Only natives can produce pure natives.  Only Americans can produce pure Americans.  Only citizens can produce pure, natural citizens, and that is something that Barack Obama was not born as, nor raised as, nor can ever become.  And that is why he is an unconstitutional President operating with unconstitutional authority after being unconstitutionally swore into office with an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution which he took knowing full well that he was in violation of it, -the oath to preserve and protect the very foundational document on which our republic is established and which prohibits him from serving in the Office of the President.

a.n. nash 2012

One Response to Native-born Foreigners & Foreign-born Natives

  1. arnash says:

    “The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.” ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)

    Such ignorance. His statement would have been true if he had omitted the word “born” because native citizens are natural citizens. They are natives of the nation via birth to members of the nation and they can be born anywhere, not just on the land owned by the natives, whereas the native-born also includes those who are not born to natives but are born to outsiders. Native-born is merely a reference to a domestic location of their birth, not to the nature of their relationship to the nation. Natives can be foreign-born, just as foreigners can be native-born.

    “The Luria court further noted that a native citizen is the same as a natural born citizen: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the NATIVE CITIZEN in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.(internal citations omitted)(emphasis added) Id at 22
    This statement is true but not for the reasons you assume, but because native citizens ARE natural citizens. No native is born to foreigners but is born to natives only, and all natives are natural citizens.

    “Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed: “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do NATIVE BORN CITIZENS.” (emphasis added) ”

    He made the semantical error of mistakenly including the word “born”, -explained above. He was not consciously aware of the distinction between the two. But regardless, his words are nothing more than the opinion of a single individual mind and has no bearing on the principle that determines who is and is not a natural citizen. AN

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 70 other followers

%d bloggers like this: