UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF NATIVE-BIRTH
DECONSTRUCTION MADISON’S NATIVE-BIRTH STATEMENT
James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
“It is an established maxim…”
-But established by whom? By Natural Rights-embracing Americans? Or Royal Rights-embracing Englishmen?
[Before responding further, I should point out the date of that statement. It was written as Madison was serving in the first House of Representatives.
From Wikipedia: “Like most of his contemporaries, Madison changed his political views during his life. During the drafting and ratification of the constitution, he favored a strong national government, though later he grew to favor stronger state governments, before settling between the two extremes late in his life. As president (1809–17) he led the nation into the War of 1812.
He found the war to be an administrative nightmare, as the United States had neither a strong army nor financial system; as a result, he afterward supported a stronger national government and a strong military, as well as the national bank, which he had long opposed.
Like other Virginia statesmen in the slave society, he was a slaveholder who inherited his plantation known as Montpelier, and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime.”
Clearly, he was a man of conflicted contradictions. As such, his view of citizenship was one thing while serving his own jus soli state, and quite another when later serving as President of all States. As President he saw a bigger picture than just that of British common law traditions that continued in Virginia and some other states.
Just consider the example of Barack Obama and his 180 degree reversals of view after being elected President. Some of his statements as Senator were the diametric opposite of his views and actions as President. I contend that a similar change happened with Madison’s understanding of citizenship.]
And what does “allegiance” even mean in the new American paradigm in which there is no King or government to which it is owed? Answer: it is owed instead to the Constitution.
“Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage,”
Exactly what “force” does birth have? Reason would say perhaps that allegiance derives its strength from from birth place or parentage, but “birth” is obviously the wrong word.
“ but in general, place is the most certain criterion; [for allegiance]
What about the circumstance in which it is not “the most certain” “in general”? And what does “the most certain criterion” even mean?
Answer: “the most certain to produce allegiance”, one must assume, and yet how could he or anyone else make such an assumption when essentially everybody that everybody knew (98% of the population or more) was born in America and born of Americans. So how on earth could anyone possibly delineate between the two influences, -assuming birth place even had an influence, -since it would be dependent on being raised in the land where one was born?
If one was not, or if one was born on Mars or the Moon or the Space Station or on an ocean or in Antarctica, -how would place of birth have any influence then? -Or born on one of the 18,000 islands of Indonesia? Or born in one land and shortly after removed to another where one grew up?
Clearly, “in general” is neither very exact nor universal in its application. Nor was place-of-birth a greater force at establishing a bond of devotion and loyalty to a homeland than were the father and mother who taught their children to revere the history of their forefathers and their great struggle and sacrifice, -their great risks and suffering to secure a future nation founded on principles of Liberty and Natural Rights.
How on earth could the most influential people in one’s life be seen as less of an influence than an imaginary attachment to soil? Answer: only if one had lousy parents. A mean drunken father and bitter mother… Only then would “the motherland” or “fatherland” or homeland become a substitute for parental love, support, and a moral compass in life.
Which is preferable; the moral & spiritual values and priorities that you, a parent, instill in your children, -or an undiscriminating devotion to and nationalistic feelings toward their “homeland”? Which one is on the higher plane?
So…. as for an endorsement of Allegiance… Yes! But birth-place as the first and foremost influence in one’s life? Not so much, -rather it is always and only meant to be at best the secondary influence in one’s life and one’s sentiments. Otherwise you find the behavior of the Imperial Japanese soldiers and Nazi soldiers as an acceptable template since they were both highly devoted to their homeland, -but without a civilized moral compass.
Values must be instilled first, national loyalty comes second, -with obedience third. Without the first you will have the third lacking any discrimination. We saw that at My Lai, Vietnam. Devotion to orders must be tempered by devotion to values, and when values and lawfulness are preeminent, unlawful orders will not be carried out.
The Germans during the Nuremberg trials stated they were simply carrying out orders and so the responsibility was not theirs for what they did. The free world did not swallow that excuse since everyone is ultimately responsible for their own irresponsible and immoral behavior. They paid the price for criminally following orders, including hanging. But they showed a very high degree of allegiance to Adolph Hitler and his orders. Not so much to German law and constitutional civil and human rights protections.
But what is lacking in that Madison paragraph is any original context. Was he simply talking about allegiance, or something else? If he was talking about citizenship, as some seem to assume, then why would he not say so by using that word? Who ever conflates the word “allegiance” with the word “citizenship”? Sure, they are related, but most things are related in some way. That does not give cause to use non-synonymous terms interchangeably. Bear in mind that one can be a citizen as well as a traitor, -just as one can be loyal and devoted to their adopted country and yet not be a citizen yet.
“-it is what applies in the United States;” According to what demographic study? According to what investigative authoritative work? According to what compendium of State Constitutions & Laws? According to what personal knowledge? According to “British common law”, -or merely the common law of the commonwealth of Virginia? Would Madison not have had a skewed view by being raised as a Virginian since Virginia allowed jus soli citizenship?
Where are the facts and figures and records and recountings to prove any claim other than that some states allowed jus soli for their immigrant’s native-born children?
If they do exist, why has no one ever referred to them?
It’s easy to say but impossible to prove, -especially when the only land that folks were intimately familiar with was the one where they grew up, -their home State –which leaves out all of the other States with their own Constitutions.
“it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” Again, -no context. Investigate what? The source of allegiance or the source of citizenship? No clue. Research needed.
Understand two things; 1. Allegiance is not citizenship and citizenship is not allegiance.
2. The Madison quote is just an expression of his impression as a Virginian. His State gave (and no doubt had given before the revolution) colony/ State membership to “sons of the soil” children of immigrants.
No one has yet shown that such citizenship was actually the sole or dominate pattern or law of the United States. To be that, the majority of citizens would have to have been born to immigrants, -not Americans.
It is asserted, and long has been, that native-birth citizenship was the tradition in America, but where is such a claim about the Constitutions of the original States? Maybe some day I’ll come across a compendium of State Constitutions’ citizenship clauses. So far, the ones I’ve investigated only state the conditions that produce citizenship, -not any principles.
The only basis of citizenship that can be “proven” is that in which birth to citizens takes place outside of the national borders. Only then is place of birth separated from parentage and a blood relationship. Yet even in that circumstance, the statutes are mum as to the principle of citizenship that is applied. But they are very, very clear that it is automatic by statute if a blood connection to a citizen parent is incontestable.
But when both parents of a foreign-born child are Americans, citizenship is automatic without the need of any statute because they are citizens by blood, -American by nature, as in political nature. All the law does is recognize that fact. ~ ~ ~
“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
[Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795) ~]
It was an established maxim of all fully indoctrinated British educated elites of upper-class society that everyone owes a “natural allegiance” to… the government? Not to The People and the Constitution?
And then he dares to quote the anti-American policy of the royal dictator? Obedience reaps the reward of protection? “Entitled to protection”? And who is their protector? Aside from local law enforcement officers, they are their own protectors as free citizens shouldering the common responsibility for self-defense. That is why they possess firearms, -unlike the conquered and dominated subjects of royal dictators. How clueless can one, or a generation, be? With that mind-set he was unable to avoid slipping back into the use of the word “subject” when referring to freemen of America. One could logically assume that he was the kind of man whose bias was more toward security than it was toward liberty.
“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects,..”. That says that one type of citizen is comparable to another type of citizen. He did NOT say that they are one and the same, -otherwise he would have left out “considered as” and just said that they are natural born citizens. But since they are not, he avoided stating that they are.
“and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” That is testimony espousing the American doctrine of citizenship equality. By its legal fiction, all Americans are equal regardless of the origin of their citizenship. They are all natural citizens, -either by birth or by our doctrine of equality. Some are natural citizens by legal fiction (those born of or born as naturalized-at-birth aliens, -about three percent) while the rest are born as natural citizens, i.e., natural born citizens.
~ ~ ~
A quote from a non-American monarchist view: “This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former (?) sovereign and residing within his dominions [that should read: new sovereign, -not “former” in order to make sense, an error unrecognized for two centuries?], are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. If they return to the country of their birth, they will be protected as subjects.” Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813). ~
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . .
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW Page 258 (1826)
“within and under” = within the dominion and under obedience to the King. All such persons so born are labeled “natural-born subjects” by the author, but without the slightest explanation as to why they were not simply labeled “subjects and not aliens” I offer an explanation further on.
“I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States,”. His lack of perception does not validate his presumption. Ignorance of the truth does not turn misconceptions into reality.
“in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . .” So…if there is no statute declaring that children do not belong to the State then one can presume that they do? Natural Law does not need to be stated for those whose minds are not thoroughly indoctrinated with the King’s system of human ownership. By Natural Law, the parents own their children and pass on to them their membership in all that they are a part of, including their species, race, family, guild and nation.
Allegiance is not synonymous with obedience even though obedience is inseparable from allegiance. The opposite is not true. Obedience is separable from allegiance because one can obey out of fear rather than loyalty. Allegiance is something that only normally attaches to a sovereign, -and it should never be related to a government representing an entire nation and not just the ruler or ruling party. Its only proper connection is to a monarch, dictator or clan or tribe chief. It is always personal because it is devotion sworn personally via a solemn oath of obedience, fidelity and devotion to one’s new ruler. Consider the example of the Knights of The Round Table swearing allegiance to King Arthur.
It’s true that allegiance can be felt toward a group, -like a Sacred Order, such as was the case of the Spartans or The Knights Templar and other special military units, but such examples are the exception, not the rule. The rule is that allegiance is direct and personal. That is what the Nazis realized and therefore forced all members of the German military and government machinery to swear an oath of allegiance personally to Adolph Hitler, -not the German nation or Constitution. They were thereby bound by honor to obedience to all orders (lawful or not).
But the governments of democratic republics are not dictators, kings nor sovereigns. They are the servants of the The People. The People are the sovereigns.
“Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” Laziness and habit cause our minds to just skip over the “AND…allegiance” part of that statement. But let’s re-order the two requirements with “allegiance” replaced with language that is equivalent, namely; “subject to the national legal & political authority”.
“Natives are all persons born both subject to the national legal & political authority of the United States and within its territory.”
If “and allegiance” is omitted from the original quote, as most are prone to do in their thinking, then the resulting logic is this: General George Armstrong Custer, during his campaign against the Sioux Nation, is accompanied by his pregnant wife who delivers George Jr. within Sioux territory. Her son is therefore a native of the Sioux Nation and thus eligible to one day be its Chief. He is viewed as no different from and as equal to Sioux-born natives regardless of his parentage and upbringing.
Clearly, the “and” addition to the statement is a gigantic AND! of major significance. ~
Warning: Beware of what you are about to read. It is 100% wrong, even though offered by a respectable authority. St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a *native-born* citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Well! That seems to settle the issue and end all debate. And it might if it were not totally incorrect. Understand first that it contains no substantiation for its claims. It’s lame logic assumes that all American children born outside of U.S. boundaries are “aliens” having no right to membership in their own parents’ nation, -as if the foreign government or king owns them and not their parents, -as if they were not born into automatic national membership by Natural Law. Natural Law? Whats that? If you don’t understand something, why acknowledge its existence?
It also means that all U.S. born children of foreign representatives and tourists and illegal entrants and over-stayers are automatically American citizens and not aliens like their parents. As well as meaning that native-birth is “a happy means of security against foreign influence” even though it absolutely is not. Where is any mention of those born on U.S. soil but taken back to the parent’s homeland and raised there as loyal subjects of a hostile monarch?
They would be filled with “foreign influence” (likewise if raised in the States by those unwilling to abandon loyalty to their life-long king, -or Wahabiist Islamic fundamentalist dogma). How is this not all very obvious with just a little bit of contemplation? Evidently, contemplation was missing before the pen was put to paper. Impressions alone were relied on, -as they are for most things not of an official legal nature.
Second, understand that the human mind does not focus on minute details and thus makes simple but sweeping assumptions based on observations not of the specific but of the general.
Those assumptions will inherently be prone to error. Example; what word is this: “minute”? Does it mean a measure of time? Or a measure of size? I just used it above as a measure of size, but we are not programmed to think of that usage first. That is because of familiarity. We are far more familiar with its use as a measure of time, and so that is what comes to mind.
The same tendency is behind the Tucker statement. It adopts the general, -nonspecific assumption and viewpoint about the people one knows but then states the general rule as if it were an all-inclusive universal rule, -which it definitely is not. That results in incorrect and illogical semi-official statements of rules, truths, facts, conclusions which are then swallowed by students seeking knowledge about a subject.
It seemed that those “born within the State” were all Americans who were born in America, with an occasional immigrant here & there. The children of the occasional immigrant did not come to mind (partly because children were not thought of like adult males were thought of, -they were more like property, appendages, -especially if one had around a dozen of them, and preferred them to be seen but not heard).
So in one’s everyday view, one sees almost only Americans, -with perhaps some immigrants now and then. From that perspective it is natural to assume that the Americans are those who were born in America because they all were born in America, -and not even have the thought enter the mind that the reason that they are Americans is because they are the natural issue of Americans.
No consciousness of Natural Law shines a single ray of light into such pedestrian thinking, and thus a very clear and elementary logic error occurs. The Fallacy of the Consequent. A good example is that of the rooster who crows before dawn with the assumption that his crowing is what makes the sun rise. By early morning hours he is ready for a new day and so he brings one about. Well… one thing does not follow the other even though they are seemingly connected. It’s the same with native birth.
That logic error would not exist if half of the nation was born somewhere else. Consider the plight of refugees, such as the Kuwaitis or Palestinians. They lived in exile for years or decades, and children were born to them. Were their children aliens to their parents (or the Kuwaiti government in exile) because they were not born on the soil of their previous homeland?
In general, the Lebanese government has never recognized the Palestinian refugee population as Lebanese even though the number of their native-born is in the hundreds of thousands. 60% of Jordan-born refugee children are still not allowed Jordanian citizenship.
Reality dispels superficial conceptions by revealing the underlying principle of membership. All natural membership is via blood. That’s the universal law of all species. No natural principle is involved when the arbitary factor of birth location is involved in group membership. Only humans are capable of such thinking. Some animal species live in inherited or acquired territory, but it does not produce any natural connection between them. Only a blood connection makes one a member of their parents’ group.
Finally, let’s not overlook the most absurd error of all; “the constitution…requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen.” Quote: U.S. Constitution Article II, Sec. I; “No person except a NATURAL born citizen shall be eligible…”
Either he did not know the accurate wording of the Constitution or he ignorantly assumed that it was perfectly alright to substitute an alternate word under the assumption of it being synonymous. Well, other than the Bible, there’s no document for which one is more prohibited from substituting alternate words. Especially ones that are not synonymous.
If the framers of the Constitution had meant to say “native-born” then they would have done so, but they did not because native-birth has nothing to do with natural citizenship, -which is based on the principle of natural membership, -not on a legal policy that happens to be viewed as “traditional” in the minds of some, -even though not natural. If one can make an error of that magnitude, what error can’t they make?
When seeking to make one’s way through the territory of their proclamations in print, don’t forget to have and activate your Truth-O-Meter or you will end up misdirected and arrive at the wrong destination. ~ ~ ~
“Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign…” [either by native-birth, or… by inherited subjection]
In other words, it’s all about the sovereign and not much else. The Divine Right of Kings is all that governs, and the unalienable Rights of Man are not considered. One’s child belongs to the king if born on his soil, instead of to the king of the foreign parents who are subjects for life. So the parents are natural subjects of one king but the baby they brought into the world is the property of another? What principle of Natural Law does that follow? Answer: None! It is purely arbitrary and self-serving control of others via royal dictate backed by the force of royal martial power. Natural membership has nothing to do with such a policy of subjectship.
“That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, [then] it is clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
So his parentage meant nothing in regard to American citizenship? Born of subjects of King George but an American citizen in spite of his origins? “Nothing is better settled at the common law…” But who’s common law? That of the sovereign States of the American union or that of his royal majesty? The later of course. They were willing to war against his rule but not against his self-serving common law policy or “doctrine” of human ownership by royal right?
So the lapdog mindset of the British-educated jurists was that the policy that benefits and was concocted for the British Crown has to be followed in perpetuity by those who risked all to overthrow him and his unnatural policies and mandates. Sure, that makes lots of sense. And speaking of sense, what sense does it make to call him an American citizen if born after the Declaration of Independence when there was no such thing as an American government or nation? He could not be a citizen of a nation that did not yet exist. He was a citizen solely of his own sovereign nation-State.
Impressions of reality may turn out to be like mirages; mis-impressions of reality.
To say it was “settled at common law” was totally ambiguous since it failed to mention the minor fact of the American Revolution and the end of the reign of the king’s authority and common law jurisdiction over matters as fundamental as the unalienable rights of all people. In particular, the right to belong to the group into which one was born by blood and not merely permission. By common law all Americans were still British and subjects of his majesty and the Church of England.
“~the doctrine that the children even of aliens…” “Doctrine” is absolutely the correct word. No one ever made the mistake of using the word “principle” because no principle was involved. Instead, it was a mandate gilded in a doctrine derived from the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings. The Americans tossed that doctrine overboard like the tea in Boston harbor.
“…children even of aliens … owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
Not really, -except in the sycophantic devotee minds of British loyalists. That statement contains two possible errors of ambiguity. One error was stating that they were subjects by birth rather than merely upon, at, or from birth. “By birth” they are subjects of their father’s foreign monarch, but secondly, -they were in fact British subjects by Law, and not birth. The law was that their native place-of-birth made them subjects.
That was by royal dictate and not via natural inheritance. That dicate was followed as a rule of the common law because it was adopted by the government and judiciary of the king and imposed not just in Britain but also in America. Clearly it was inculcated into the thinking of most British-educated Americans and became an embedded element of their world view, even though it was passé and rejected as un-American by the founders of the nation.
As founders of a new democratic republic, in their new view of Man & his Natural Rights, children do not belong to the Crown but to their parents and are natural members of their group. Born into it as new members. Thus the difference between subjects and citizens was that citizens did not belong to the government but the government belonged to them. They were its sovereigns, -it was not theirs -except to the degree that they allowed by written statute. They were members of the American family by the same principle by which one is a member of their own family or clan or tribe or country.
Where exit from the womb occurred was irrelevant.
Those who came after the founders were raised in an old system that was still in place. A legal system create by and for the benefit of the Crown but which was tempered by human rights secured against the tyrannical arbitrary rule of royal despots. The Americans were denied the rights that existed in England, and hence the revolution was necessary. But the overthrow of British rule did not include the overthrow of the ingrained British mind-set.
It continued on unabated. It continued to flourish because of all of the good that it had brought to the cause of human rights. The teachers of young Americans were very august, sober, respectable authorities. When people of such character teach young minds, their indoctrination into the system of which they are a part, -knowing no other, is planted into and grown in the fertile minds of their students.
One does not question the knowledge or wisdom, or correctness of their respectable mentors, -especially when they are very powerful men, -men like Hitler or Lenin or Marx or Mohammed. No young student questioned the “rightness” of what such unquestionable leaders taught. It does not follow that what they taught actually was right. In fact, their teachings were entirely embraced regardless of being entirely wrong.
Just consider the followers of al Qaeda and Jihad against the West. They are taught by mentors who carry a great deal of authority and respect. Something would have to be fundamentally wrong with the universe for such men to be wrong, -which is inconceivable. Thus the indoctrination, the dogma, the divine orders and dictates must be embraced and followed.
Well, I have it on good authority (experience) that there is in fact something fundamentally wrong with the universe, but no one realizes what it is because to do so would require re-wiring their brains, -and most brains aren’t open for that.
Jesus related that evangelizing the new message of the Kingdom of God to minds already firmly indoctrinated with the old would not work, -comparing it to putting new wine into old wine-skins which could not handle the fermentation pressure and would therefore burst.
For most minds, once deep grooves of ideas and priorities are carved into them and hardened, they cannot be remolded. That was the problem that Moses faced after bringing Hebrews out of Egypt. They were all Egyptians by culture and thinking and had been so for centuries. They were not the people of God who were destined to form a new and unique nation and religion based on devotion to a single creator diety who was holy and highly moral.
If they had been allowed to invade and conquer the land of evil-god worshipping pagans in Palestine, then they would have just fashioned for themselves a new Egypt with its pagan gods, theology and rituals.
To avoid that, they were condemned to spend 40 years in the wilderness until the older generations died off. They could not be fixed. Set in their ways. So it was and is with authorities who had been taught by authorites who based their teaching on what they had been taught in a system that the patriots had overthrown. A major element of that system was the King’s prerogative to claim as his own the children of foreigners simply because they entered the world within his domain.
What does such a system have to do with the natural pattern of life, -with natural membership by blood? How could anyone with an open, unindoctrinated mind mistake the meaning of the word “natural” for the meaning of the word “native”? Would George Custer Jr. be not only a “native” of the Sioux nation but also a natural member? Pulling the cover off of the issue of the origins of citizenship reveals that it is not the simplistic “native-born or alien” dichotomy that it is thoughtlessly portrayed as. ~ ~ ~
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
Why is native-birth unaccompanied by any mention of being subject to American authority, -or mention of those who were not, -like Indians, slaves, Gypsies, or American-born children of foreign representatives and tourists? Instead we get “every person”.
So if Osama bin Laden (or King George III) had a child born in the U.S., and raised it to be a fervent Jihadi (or monarchist), it could one day run for and be elected to the presidency of the United States. Gee, the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution must have had a black-out when they wrote the words that would allow that.
But in fact, they never wrote any such words because the word “natural” is not interchangeable with the word “native”, and “native-born citizen” is not interchangeable with “natural born citizen” because one follows Natural Law while the other follows the dictate of dictators.
Bear in mind the meaning of the word “pontification”. It often involves making claims unsupported by anything. None of the many statements shared here, and many more like them, are accompanied by any form of historical proof. They are just the echoing of echos of beliefs of men who were once a part of a foreign kingdom, and never got past the programming that it inculcated into their minds.
They were the American Egyptians who dominated the younger generations and indoctrinated them into Egyptian thinking and mythology, i.e., -an unnatural philosophy of citizenship.
That author, William Rawle, was a native-born Virginian, indoctrinated from childhood into the philosophy of jus soli (or soil-based) citizenship totally replacing natural jus sanguinis (or blood-based) citizenship. Those who wrote the first laws in the colonies that allowed alien immigrants’ children to be accepted as subjects or citizens did not do so with the thought that such an allowance for a tiny minority of their population would one day mistakenly be viewed as overthrowing the eternal natural basis of natural membership. Their only thought was that it was not a good thing to stigmatize and discriminate against sons of immigrants who emigrated from nations other than England. The Natural Rights of Man required equality for all men (i.e. all free-men who happened to be white, European, Protestant, and not criminals or hostiles). ~ ~ ~
“It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born *subject* from being president.” “Subject”? In 1835? Gee, I wonder if someone was programmed into British thinking? State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835).
“and that no person except a natural born *subject* can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.” The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854)!!!
“The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ” Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
Well, that opinion actually involved not thinking but simply assuming instead. A whole lot of people who had risen to positions of prominence and authority were possessed of a whole lot of presumption which allowed them to confidently pontificate without any substantiation for their view other than the force of British law lingering at the very foundation of our free republic.
But the founders had pulled those noxious weeds out by the roots. But they didn’t adequately verbalize their foundational Natural Rights philosophy to a degree that could eliminate all confusion and vestiages of the King’s unnatural system. Hence it continued to flourish.
Note the mention of an existing “standard” definition of “natural born citizen” being found in the common law. Actually, it did not exist in the common law because CITIZENS did not exist in the common law, and the two terms are fundamentally different in nature and application. Citizens have responsibilities that subjects do not have since they are responsible for their own governance and national defense, while subjects are dependent on the Crown and obligated to be obedient to whatever lawful orders it might dictate.
Also, the Crown allowed them no right of expatriation. But it was a fundamental human right in the American system, and no government had a moral right to deny it. One had an unalienable right to renounce the obedience they were born under and assume a new position in life as a member of a free nation. No argument of that fact was tolerated in America.
“and no different standard has been adopted since.” More accurately, no standard has been adopted, -ever! That is because none needed to be “adopted” since the words mean what their normal English language meaning conveys.
It is a fundamental error to suppose that those three words (natural born citizen) constitute a legal “term of art” that requires reference to some source of origin. They are not a “term of art” (which itself is a term of art) but are just three normal words like “natural blonde”, or “natural born athlete” which implies one endowed by nature with a natural athletic ability, -as opposed to one who developes athletic prowess by rigorous training. Did you need a common law dictionary to understand that implication? Or just an understanding of the English language?
Also, its origin in the Constitution was as a suggestion by John Jay, former president of the Continetal Congress, who admonished General George Washington to allow none but a natural born citizen to occupy the Command in Chief of the United States military. But he underlined the word “born” implying that it had a special importance. That fact implies that the three words have individual meaning and not a term-of-art unitarian meaning. I’ve explain that subject a hundred different ways already and won’t belabor it further.
“Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents,” [that was hypothetical then, and never happened openly in U.S. history until the election of the alien-born B.H. Obama –if you assume he was native-born] “-could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lack of doubt never made anyone’s beliefs valid. No one doubted that the earth was flat and it was possible to sail off the edge. A million other similar examples could be given besides. But to pontificate that no doubt could be reasonable was the height of over-confidence and over-programming in the British manner of thinking.
Understand something about human nature, -a flaw that goes unrecognized. It is that people like what they say to have a ring of weighty authority, -thereby lending a hand to its acceptance, force, and appearance of validity and certainty. That is done by the addition of superfluous adjectives or adverbs. That isn’t a bad thing unless it actually changes the meaning of what is being pontificated. But when rooster-ing verbal puffery makes a significant but over-looked difference, it is a travesty of communication when that alters the perception of reality, and results in a falsehood being adopted and perpetuated as being accurate and true. Such has been what occurred with the use of the word “subject”.
In arguing a case asserting that so-and-so was born as a subject of England and thus was eligible for inheritance rights upon the death of a British relative, then resort to language inflation was a temptation that was not resisted. Thus the claim that one was simply a subject (though alien-born) devolved to employing the fuller and more weighty label of “natural-born subject”.
That practice continued in America but with the substitution of calling one “a natural-born citizen” or “natural-born subject” when by being alien-born one was merely a citizen by law or tradition or common law, -with their citizenship having nothing whatsoever to do with natural citizenship.
You will see that puffery and error all over the landscape of American citizenship commentary. It in fact became a form of “institutionalized error”. As the term suggests, bureaucracies, systems, and traditions can be infused with unremovable errors. Like a disk surgically implanted in one’s back, or dental implants in one’s mouth, removal is not an option. But just because it is present and integrated into the system does not make it natural or correct.
It remains artificial, just as artificial citizenship will always result from citizenship by law for children of aliens who have no natural right to national membership since they are not natural members. Just ask all the Palestinians born in Lebanon why they are not Lebanese. It is because they are not Lebanese by blood. The fact that they are also not Lebanese by law should speak volumes to all about the nature of legal citizenship.
It is not by right but by mercy. It is not by blood but by borders. It is not by Life but by Law. So anytime you read a statement that inflates simple legal citizen(ship) or subject(ship) with the added puffery of “natural born”, you know the words were spoken as pontification and not substantiatable truth. Their addition is like putting a squash inside a pillow during a pillow fight. It adds weight and substance, but unfairly. The squash does not belong, just as “natural born” does not belong when discussing the citizenship of the alien-born. There is nothing natural about it. Adding those words is like gold-plating an inexpensive piece of metal jewelry.
“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle…. But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…”
Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206, 208 (February 1854). [quoted in the Wong Kim Ark decision of the Supreme Court in 1898]
That statement is like a minefield of potential errors, -beginning with its first statement. He made the mistake of adding the puffery of “The right of”. National membership has its source either as an unalienable right or as a legal gift. Unalienable rights are not delineated in the law, including the right of national membership in the group to which one’s parents belong, along with others such as the right to belong to them and not to the government, -and their right to own their own child.
Where are those rights in the law? Nowhere, because rights that are universally incontestable do not need to be codified into written law. They are the understood foundation of civilization and free republics.
It is true that that natural right of citizenship does not descend in a legal sense, -considering there is no law that declares it to be so. That’s because governments are not in the business of stating the obvious. What is universally agreed to need not even be put into writing. And it wasn’t put into writing for the 98% of Americans born of Americans. It was “a given”.
He was wrong about citizenship by descent not being legally recognized for children of naturalized foreign fathers. But the recognition was unrecognizable due to the absence of any elucidation regarding the operating principle behind their recognition of citizenship.
From the beginning, naturalization acts recognized the U.S. citizenship of children of naturalized men. But Binney, indoctrinated into thinking grounded in the British system and not American principles, assumed that their citizenship was bestowed via the operation of enacted statute making it so. That was not what was behind their citizenship. Under American principles they could not have a citizenship different from their father’s because he was the determinant, the source and fountain of their nationality. Whatever he was, so were they as his issue and reflection. The naturalization acts merely recognized that natural law reality and stated for the record the resultant fact that they also were U.S. citizens (through him, through his new citizenship, i.e., -by descent.)
“[Citizenship] is incident to birth in the country,”. No, it…is…not! Unless someone died and made borders God, then it is merely co-incident. Although almost everyone (percentage wise) who is an American citizen was born in the United States, that does not mean that that fact is anything other than coincidental to the real source of their national membership, which is their unalienable right of belonging to their parents and the nation of which they are members.
If one’s parents were among the 1-3 percent or so who were aliens, then birth in the country is not optional to citizenship. It is absolutely vital and necessary. But it is irrelevant if one’s foreign parents were not subject to the full political authority of the American government by being foreign representatives or foreign guests. Their native-born children are not covered by the 14th Amendment, although that is unrecognized by the legal establishment, and has been so for well over a century. (a major, gigantic institutionalized error) Recognize that no institutionalized error is perceived as being an error, -other than the government calling Native Americans “Indians”.
Speaking of which, just imagine the breadth of that error. Even the Natives themselves use that term because it is totally ingrained in American culture, and has been in use for over 500 years. But it is totally wrong. Columbus didn’t know that. He just did what people always do, and assumed that his assumption was correct, -thereby forever mislabeling them as people of India. Ingrained errors dominate the national landscape. We shouldn’t be too surprised since we like simple answers and don’t want to spend the time in researching and contemplating nuanced answers (my readers excepted). ~ ~ ~
“Allegiance”: It is natural, acquired, or local. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of that character. Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)
Now think about it. Why has it never been decided? Because no one was teaching the principle of Natural Law regarding the origin of citizenship and what was underlying it. If they were they would be crystal clear that allegiance is one’s to give or not give. It is a natural right of all individuals. It is a fundamental principle of American values and has been held high since before the Revolution. Without it, there would have been no revolution.
Americans do everything they can to divest foreigners of all foreign allegiance via the solemn taking of the Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. They thereby start life anew as newly born American citizens owing allegiance to no monarch, potentate, state, or power.
If they happen to meet their former king, they have every reason to not bow to him because they are now his equal. They are Americans and the Americans recognize no sovereignty superior to their own. [with one exception; -the revolutionary war cry of “No King but Jesus!”] The Americans paid reverence to a heavenly kingdom and the spiritual values that were the basis of their lives. They expressed that honor for Nature and Nature’s God in the Declaration of Independence. All of the misconceptions over the centuries are not preeminent over the values and principles on which the new nation was founded, but their volume does bury them and make them invisible to those who only see the superficial and assume that it not only is all that matters but is all there is.
by Adrien Nash 2-14.