Membership by Right vs Citizenship by Law

Membership by Right vs Citizenship by Law  pdf

The American national history and policy regarding citizenship for foreigners is spread across three distinct periods. The second began when the new nation was formed in 1789, and the third began in 1898 with the Wong opinion of the Supreme Court.
Before that, national citizenship was based on State citizenship  with the individual States that formed the union retaining their sovereignty over who they regarded as their citizens and Congress only tasked by the Constitution with making a uniform rule to make their naturalization qualifications uniform across all of the States.

For nearly a century, foreign women could not become Americans except by marrying an American. Why not?  Because they were under the headship of their father well into adulthood and carried his foreign nationality as their own.  They remained as a member of their own family and that family was foreign.  Only sons could step outside of the family and attach themselves to another nation and seek to become a member of it.

Why were they allowed to naturalize but not their sisters?  Because they could and would become full citizens while women could not become full citizens since they were viewed in the patriarchal world as akin to chattel.  They did not possess the rights of CITIZENS because they were not subject to duties of citizens, -the first and foremost of which was the obligation to contribute directly in national defense.
That obligation was enshrined in the oath of naturalization that men-folk took in order to sever their remaining connection to the sovereign government of their homeland and pledge their allegiance to their new country and its Constitution.  They swore on the Bible that they would bear arms in the defense of the nation (if required) and that was an oath not written to be taken by any woman.  Women were not under any obligation to bear arms since they and children were the ones for whom defense was purposed.  Being in the protected group that men were responsible to defend, they were not subject to the federal jurisdiction that extended to all able-bodied American men within military age.

That meant that foreign women could not be required to serve in the American military, so since women had no civilian citizenship privileges and duties anyway, there would be no purpose for them to obtain American citizenship.   They could not defend the nation and its people.  They could not vote, serve on juries, serve as government officials nor as elected officials.  And they could certainly never be President.  Thus no naturalization rule was ever written for them.  [Their rights in foreign nations were no better, but were probably worse.]

Naturalization in America involved a serious severing of a man’s old loyalties and obedience to his own nation and government.  The severing via the taking of the sacred Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation was akin to cutting an umbilical cord that attached him to his homeland and it’s society, and rejecting the umbrella of protection of its government, -which was accompanied by an obligation of obedience.

To understand that second period of American history, one needs to think of the immigrant foreign family (such as my mother’s immigrant great, grand parents and their four daughters) as a single unit, -headed by the husband & father, encapsulated within a political placenta attached to an umbilical cord rooted in their foreign homeland, -to which they could return and continue their lives there as natural members and natives of their country.

The attitude of our national government was to view them as a single foreign unit separated from all Americans by being surrounded by the barrier of foreign membership.  If a birth occurred within that foreign sphere, -within the placenta with a foreign attachment, it was as if it did not occur on American soil but on foreign soil because the foreign subjectship of the father surround him and his, the whole family unit.

That was exactly the same as the attitude of the national government toward a foreign minister or ambassador if his wife gave birth within one of the several States.  He was alien as well as all within his family regardless of their birth location.
The sphere that surrounded the immigrant family can be thought of as comprised of two hemispheres.  -One is the natural connection to his own kinsmen or countrymen, while the other is his location within the sovereign borders of his own nation.  He and his own were “within and under the jurisdiction” of his own nation while living within it.

But while living within the American States, half of that sphere was no longer surrounding them.  Only the natural ties to his homeland remained, -also known as his alienage.
Within some States, that openness and closeness to American soil fostered the attitude, policy and law (inherited from colonial law) that any children that might be born to him in America would be considered as a citizen of the State into which he had emigrated.

But that was not consistent with the view adopted by the national government which was ultimately responsible for dealing with international relationships, including those regarding foreign subjects.
As a result of the two different approaches to citizenship, for a century there were unresolved doubts that such domestically born children were really American citizens.
Those questions were resolved by the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark when the court opined that U.S. born children of Chinese immigrants are American citizens, and thus by extrapolation, so also were the U.S. born children of all other immigrants.

The issue as to citizenship hadn’t been in regard to alien-born females (because all females were in effect merely American subjects) but rather their brothers.

If they were viewed as State citizens due to native birth, and were elected to office as adults, then were they also eligible for national office when the national government did not recognized their national citizenship?  So, under the rule of two separate governments, State citizenship was not the same as national citizenship, in particular regarding the right to serve in Congress and as President.

They were foreigners by birth to foreign parents who might have always remained foreigners, and the U.S. government rejected the notion of embraced dual-citizenship, just as bigamy was rejected by American society.
What happened in 1898 was the Supreme Court deciding that the original and intended meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause; “All person born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are a citizen of the United States” would mean something else, something much less than what they meant as written and ratified.
That something that they dropped out of sight was one’s natural obligation to defend one’s own nation.
That obligation was invested in the men of the family, starting with the father, and inherited by his sons upon maturity.
Foreign men, by American law and policy, were not subject to that obligation as American men were because they were not citizens, remaining still within the remaining hemisphere of their foreign attachment and jurisdiction.
When the high court ruled that the native-born children of immigrants were Americans regardless of the families intact foreign attachment, then that opened the door to the view that if the child had American roots via its birth within American jurisdiction, then the father and sons also had connections to their new nation and thus shared the responsibility for national defense.
From then on, they were subject to military conscription, even though they were viewed as foreign nationals.  And that remains the policy still. They must register with Selective Service.

In response to the court’s opinion, the Attorney General adopted the policy that subjection to American sovereign authority was not a consideration and in effect had no meaning as concerns the male responsibility in national membership.
He thus eviscerated the intent of the 14th Amendment, the concept of family unity under the father, and natural foreign attachments as a factor in determining American citizenship for any and every baby born within U.S. jurisdiction, -even if not subject to it as required.

Ever since his total bastardization of the very clear and simple Supreme Court opinion covering children of only immigrants, any baby born in U.S. territory is erroneously assumed to be a U.S. citizen as long as his father isn’t an ambassador.    ~   ~   ~

When you were born, by what right did you belong to your mother (and she to you)?  I know what you’re thinking; by every right, -both natural and legal.  But you are mistaken.  Your right was 100% a natural right and 0% a legal right if one is referring to actual law.
All that the authority of government does is to recognized and validate your natural right.  Your natural right is an issue of blood, -and whose blood you were born with by natural inheritance (aliens or Americans?) .

By your blood relationship to your mother, and your father, you are a natural member of their family, -and government is not needed to validate that right but is obligated to support and defend it.
That right never needed to be written because it is fundamental to the very nature of all living sentient creatures who have a higher nature that includes natural bonds.  That natural right exists side-by-side with the right to live, and the right of self-defense.  It can be called “the right of belonging”.

“The defense of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation—of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice.

James Wilson, -Lectures on Law, Chap. XII, “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals,” 1790.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

No one gives these rights to you, and no government grants them.  No matter how authoritarian a government might be, for its non-imprisioned population, the right of belonging is sacrosanct.  It cannot be violated without very good reason springing only from protecting a child from harm, which is an obligation of government towards all of the civilian members of the nation.

The natural right of belonging is not bounded by one’s immediate family only.  It extends to the greater family of which they are a part as members, from clans and tribes, to countries and nations.
Every child is born with the natural right to belong to whatever societal group the parents belong to.  That is not a right that our founding fathers would have ever ceded to government caprice, policy, sentiment, or legislation.

It was their inviolable right and would never be surrendered for any reason.  And it was not surrendered, -even though many who fail to understand fundamental American principles might think otherwise, presuming that the old way of the English Kings is still controlling the lives of Americans today.

We fought a war of independence to overthrow the old royal dictatorship, including ownership based on a native-birth paradigm.  The Americans switched from having to acknowledge before the revolution that “I am a subject of the King because I was born within his territory.” to “I am no one’s subject and I belong to my country and nation because I was born of countrymen and citizens of the nation.  I inherited my membership naturally through my blood connection to parent members.”

That declaration could and would be accompanied by its sister declaration: “And it does not matter where my mother delivered me from the womb, because I naturally belong to her and my father, and as part of them I am also a member of the people and society and nation of which they are a part.”

Bottom line?  Native-birth is absolutely an irrelevant factor in determining who is a natural born citizen of the American nation and eligible to be President, because the issue of birth location is wholly an arbitrary human-invented factor that has no relationship to natural membership and natural citizenship.   A “natural born citizen” is everyone born of citizens.

By a Supreme Court opinion, a child can be born as an American citizen, but being a citizen is not the same as being born as a natural citizen, which must be the true natural status of all Presidents.  They constitutionally cannot be alien-immigrant-foreigner-born.  They must be born of only an American mother and father.

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–

How “The Ring of Power” Shaped Presidential Eligibility

revised March 5, 12:45

How Rome, the Crown, and Benedict Arnold Limited Presidential Eligibility

How Rome Limited Presidential Eligibility

10 page pdf.

excerpt:  The British king, with command of British forces, showed to the Constitution’s framers the dangers of an autocratic Commander-in-Chief, -one who might act arbitrarily and not be limited by the authority of Congress.

That was a huge danger, but the bloodline of the monarchy revealed the potential danger of foreign allegiance since monarchs had to be born of royalty.

There was not enough military might in Britain to provide full assurance of peace with ambitious and aggressive European neighbors, so to ensure peace & security, -and a sense of fraternity between nations, it was necessary for heirs to the throne to marry foreign royals.  Thus, once that was established as the custom, the Queen, the woman that the King of England married, was inevitably a foreigner.  One hundred percent not British.
That was worse than a case of a one or two term President’s wife being say… Russian, -or Chinese.
Now far worse than that was the case in reverse, -where there was no male heir to the throne and so a daughter of the King had to be installed as the Queen of all England or all Britain.

According to royal custom, she must marry outside of England to maintain bloodline-ties to the royalty and aristocracy of Europe and Russia.

Well!  That was something highly conducive to producing great danger for the nation, since she would be married for life to a loyal royal from a foreign nation.  -And a woman by custom was viewed as subject to her head, -her husband who she vowed to obey with a sacred marriage vow.
What possible status quo situation could be more fraught with more potential for foreign plots against the sovereignty of the nation?
Imagine a female President for life married to Vladimir Putin.  That was the situation when a British Queen married a foreign royal.

Debunking the BS of Bloviating Windbags



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 “ANDallegiance 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.

Born a Citizen, -but Ineligible to be President

Born a Citizen, -but Ineligible to be President  PDF

Some people care about the rule of law not being replaced by the rule of men.  Some people care about the authority under which government is ordered to operate not being push aside, ignored, trampled, and violated for the furtherance of political agenda.

Some people care about adhering to our nation’s fundamental charter; the Constitution of the United States.  And some people just don’t give a damn.  Whatever their desires are is what will dictate what path they take, -the law be damned, -or be locked in the basement, in an invisible trunk with no key.

An alternate choice is to pretend to be honest and law abiding but in order to appear such, pervert the meaning of its words so one can  pretend to not be lawless in not applying them as they were written and defined.

One egregious example of that is the wording of the Constitution regarding the qualification to be President and Vice-President.  It requires that one be born a citizen in order to be eligible.  No, -wait…it requires that one be a native-born citizen.  Yeah, that sounds right.  That’s what we all agree on.  That’s what we all assume.  That is what the entire nation and government and media and judiciary and both political parties and electoral college understood to be what the Constitution requires in order to qualify to be President.

But guess what.  They are all wrong, -and you are about to find out why.  It’s because the Constitution does not require the President to be native-born; (-although he needs to have lived in the United States for 14 years).  Instead it requires that “No person, except a natural born citizen,… shall be eligible to the office of President;..”.  (Uh-oh; natural and native aren’t synonymous!)

A fair number of awake and alert Americans realize that fact, but they have a huge conceptual problem.  They think that it is like a mystery term which needs discovery as to its true original meaning.

They think it has a unitarian meaning by which the individual words are not important but instead the combined meaning taken together as a whole, and defined by some authoritative source, must be the explanation for what those three words mean.

Its like the term for what men wear below the waist.  A pair of pants.  Does that mean we’re wearing two pants, whatever they are?  What a confused term that is and clearly it doesn’t mean what the words mean.  There must be some ancient reason we speak like that, -one which would need investigation and solving.  So it is with natural born citizen.
People think that the individual words do not mean what they mean individually, -and that misconception results from a false assumption regarding the logic of which words modify the noun and how they do that.
The noun of course is “citizen”.  How do “natural” and “born” relate to it?  Answer that question correctly, and the answer will appear to you.

Answer it incorrectly, and a false answer will appear to you, -in fact three will appear, one of which you can match  to your bias.  And that is what everyone has done.  They’ve picked the wrong answer about which words modify what and consequently have arrived at one of three answers, -all of which are wrong because their basic assumption was wrong.  That assumption leads to a second major error which doubles the error of their conclusion.  Let’s look at them from the beginning.

The first choice one’s subconscious makes is in interpreting which word “natural” is related to; -to “born”? or… to “citizen”?  Everyone, almost without exception, makes the erroneous assumption that it relates to the word “born”, and yet that turns out to be completely wrong.  It instead relates to the word “citizen”.  As in “natural citizen”, -grafted onto “born citizen”, -like rich…young…man = “rich man” and “young man” combined, -with there being no such term as “rich-young”.

A born citizen is one born as a citizen.  A citizen from birth.  That means one did not become a citizen via the naturalization process.
Combine that with needing to be a natural citizen, -a citizen by nature, by natural political inheritance from citizen parents, similar to natural subjects of a monarch who were born of subject parents and not foreigners, and you have one who was born as a natural citizen.
One could say; “a born natural citizen” or a “natural born citizen” which mean the same thing, but with a reversed focus.  That difference could be emphasized by underlining one of the words (which was done by the originator of the proposal to require such a qualification for the presidency.

But if you err, and assume that the word “natural” modifies the word “born”, then you find yourself in fantasy land.  In fantasy land there are three different possible meanings for “natural born citizen” and they are all dependent on its meaning not being derived from the words themselves but from an attached meaning to the three as a whole, a unitarian meaning which does not rely on the meaning of the individual words.

That meaning is like a dental bridge made up of three crowns welded together into one piece with metal rods protruding from the two end crowns and inserted into two roots, (which can’t be done with the middle crown because the root is gone).  You can’t take the crowns as separate units because they are not separate but combined.  And so it is with the results of assuming incorrectly that the word “natural” modifies the word “born” instead of the word “citizen”.

By that assumption you produce the undefined term: “natural-born”.  Many very intelligent, and insightful minds have failed to recognize that error of linguistic logic.

They have failed to because they immediately find themselves confronted by an elusive, ancient, unknown meaning that they must decipher and make sense of, -a puzzle they must solve and come to a conclusion regarding; -picking one of the three possibilities that result from the assumption that “natural-born citizen has a unitarian-phrase meaning.

But does it?  Or does it means just and only what the individual words convey?
Before identifying those three possible erroneous meanings, it’s necessary to first show the basis of their presumed correctness.  That basis is a fictional device of language known as “a term of art”.  By that device, they can attach to the words whatever meaning their biased desires choose, and that their logic will support.

By kidnapping the three words, and re-characterizing them as something they are not, a new adopted meaning can be attached to them, a new character.  They hold it to be the correct character, but is it?
They hold that the conclusion they have arrived at must be the true meaning of natural born citizen, but since their starting assumption is wrong, their conclusion is as well.

They were easily seduced by the assumption that the three words are a “term of art”, and that they are smart enough to figure out what the heck that fantasy meaning is, -and was long ago.  And they do figure it out.
But their conclusion is distorted by the false assumption that the words together constitute a “term of art”, -a legal term of art, -which itself might be a term of art since “art” does not refer to actual art but to artifice, -as in artificial or fictional or man-made construct.
Legal artifices, -legal fictions, or fictions of law, are necessary conceptual devices of  language needed in law to make harmony, equity, clarity or justice possible in unusual circumstances.

The fallacy that “natural born citizen” is a term of art is rooted in the British bastardization of “natural born subject” -a term invented in 1608 to make foreign subjects into English subjects so that under English law they would be allowed to inherit land from their English relatives,  -which foreigners were forbidden from doing.

The foreigners in that case were the Scots.  In the seminal case known as Calvin’s case, they were labeled as “natural-born subjects” of the King of England who happened to assume the throne of both nations due to lack of an English heir, with James the VI of Scotland becoming James I of England.

Still, Scotsmen were not Englishmen, and logically could not inherit English property since their allegiance was not to the English King but to the Scottish king.  But the logical leap of the national court in that case was that those born in Scotland after the enthronement of James as King of England, were born subject to him and therefore could inherit.
That meant in effect that instead of needing to be Englishmen, born subject to the English throne, they merely had to be born subject to the person who occupied the throne, and not to the English sovereign office of monarch itself.

As a consequence, natural English subject was replaced with “natural-born subject” of the Crown, -with being English being left out of the equation.

If that had never happened, then “natural-born subject” would not have been needed as a term of art description, and neither English subjects nor colonial subjects would ever have been called natural-born subjects, but instead only natural British subjects or natural colonial or American subjects.

So the history of the English term of art has colored the perception of most regarding what General George Washington and the constitutional convention had in mind regarding the meaning of the American words “natural born Citizen” (not “subject“).   Many blindly hold the view that the words, -the term of art, had to have had a pre-existing meaning which the founders had to figure out in order to understand their own choice of words, -their own requirement.  But just as they threw out the British word “subject”, -so also they threw out the British “term of art” adjectival modifier “natural-born”, and replaced it with the common language words “natural” and “born”.  The order of their use could have been the opposite.

But why did they not simply adopt the analog to what had been used long ago before the Calvin case, and simply require the President to be a “natural citizen”?  The answer is that because they knew that that term had become by their choice a real term of art and was thus ambiguous, -with one original meaning alongside a new added meaning.
What was the added meaning, (besides meaning being citizen-born)?  It was a meaning derived from a little known American doctrine regarding fundamental equality of citizenship.

That doctrine of citizenship equality was rooted in the American belief that all men, all Americans, all citizens are created equal.  No royalty, no nobility, no aristocracy, no elite class, no inferior class, no native class, no foreign class.
All Americans were Americans, -equal brothers in a grand experiment in liberty and self governance under law.  That required an American fiction of law by which new Americans became the same as all other Americans, i.e., -natural American citizens.  All natural American citizens are equal and their citizenship is unchallengeable.
It would be an unequal situation if that were not true.

Thus the fiction that newly sworn in Americans were not citizen-ized, but instead were natural-ized.  That meant made into new natural citizens.
There is no such term as citizen-ized, nor native-ized.  There is only natural-ized, -meaning American by blood because only blood is natural.  Nature is not tied to birth location nor is the word “natural”.  Thus all citizens were natural citizens by the American doctrine and fiction of citizenship equality.

As a result, the suggester of the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen, (John Jay, former President of the Continental Congress and future Supreme Court Chief Justice) John Jay3 urged General Washington by letter to require that no one be allowed to wield the power of the position of Command in Chief except one born as a natural citizen.  That suggestion was conveyed by what he did to the supposed term of art.  He did something to it that cannot be done to any term of art.  He  underlined one of the words.

He underlined the word “born”, -indicating that using the term “natural citizen” alone was subject to ambiguity, and some so-called natural citizens were not to be trusted with that power.

Only individual words can be underlined.  Terms of legal artifice are unitarian like a dental bridge.  The individual words cannot be separately emphasized since the fiction is that they don’t have individual meaning.  Example, you cannot underline the words of the term of art: “coupled with an interest”.  If one underlined any of them then that would be evidence that individual words carry their normal individual meaning, and not a unitarian combined meaning only.
So Jay wanted the position of America’s military Chief of Command to be restricted to only those who were citizen born.  American born, -not just born in America, but born of Americans.

Neither “born citizen” nor “natural citizen” could unambiguously convey that fact, but combining them could, -along with underling the word “born” for emphasis that one must be a natural citizen by birth, -not by a legal fiction of the American doctrine of citizenship.

Nor could one merely be “a born citizen” since some States choose to  bestow their citizenship from birth on the native-born children of their immigrants, -with immigration and citizenship being State matters, -not federal since there was no federal government, nor did the Constitution give the future central government authority over either except to make their various naturalization requirements uniform nationwide.

The first Congress did that, and threw in something extra; a protection for the sons of Americans born beyond America’s borders, -a protection of their  equal right to be eligible to serve their country in every possible capacity, -including as President and Commander in Chief if destiny so called.
It made it known in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that foreign-born Americans were to be recognized as “natural born citizens”.  How could they be that?
Because native-birth was not an element of real natural citizenship.  Its only element is blood.  Not dirt.  Not borders.  Not geography.  Not artificial, arbitrary, conquest-acquired boundaries.

All that is elemental to natural membership is natural transmission, -transmission of life, species, race, ethnicity, and group membership, including political membership, aka, nationality.
~”Born an American”.  But born an American by what?  By Nature?  Or by Law?  Ambiguity again!

John Jay eliminated all ambiguity by suggesting requiring that the Commander in Chief be not just born a citizen, but born a natural citizen; -not born simply a legal citizen by the beneficent allowance of some of the States toward native-born alien children.

The central government from the beginning viewed all minor alien-born children as having no nationality other than that of their family head, -their father.
If he never became an American then neither did they because they were born subject through him to the same foreign monarch or sovereign power.  They were “flesh of his flesh”.  If his “flesh” was foreign, then so was theirs.  They only inherited his nationality, regardless of individual States granting them their State citizenship from birth.
Such children were accepted as American nationals, even citizens of the United States, but for constitutional purposes, were not accepted as “natural born citizens” who were eligible to hold the office of President.  Being alien born disqualified them.

To be able to accept the obvious truth requires that one rejects the blind subconscious leap of presumption into the fantasy land where the word “natural” modifies the word “born” instead of “citizen”.  In “natural-born” fantasy land one can pick from three, -yes three! possible choices.
Select any which one that suits you.  Here we have fantasy choice number 1.  It’s that “natural” actually means “native”… somehow, -magically.  But in fantasy land, proof is not really required, so no sweat.  Run with it if that is what you need to believe.  Embrace it and don’t worry about whether or not it might be “factually” incorrect.

And over here we have fantasy choice number 2.  It’s like choice number one but with whipped cream on top.  The whipped cream is the additional requirement that the native-born citizen be born of American parents.  That sounds really, really good.  So Patriotic!  BORN OF AMERICANS… -IN AMERICA!

That is like a double-barrel shotgun of American-ness.  Why skimp on the American-ness?  That doesn’t seem like it’s going too far, -after all, it’s not requiring that one be born of American grandparents.  It seems like a perfect Goldilocks sort of requirement; not to little, not too much.  Just right!  But also just wrong!  That being because of the addition of the non-applicable requirement of native-birth (which is unrelated to anything natural).

And… over here we have one that everyone will enjoy, -the one concocted by a respectable member of the bar (Jack Maskell) hired by the august U.S. Senate to get to the bottom of the situation of John McCain’s eligibility.  He hit it out of the park with a new and ingenious solution.  It was…
Embrace either one of two!  Either native-born 14th Amendment citizenship, or uncodified, pre-Constitution, pre-U.S. government natural citizenship which existed originally as inherited natural State citizenship.  That way, everyone gets included, -except those suspicious naturalized citizens.

Hear ye, hear ye… All citizen-born natural citizens…YOU ARE ELIGIBLE!  Plus… All alien-born foreign-fathered citizens… COME ON DOWN!  YOU TOO CAN BE PRESIDENT!  And while we’re at it, there’s a darn good chance that even you illegal alien born… whatever you are… citizens? are eligible as well.  After all, -you were native-born too, right?

That is the great “OPEN SESAME!” magic pass, isn’t it?  No one is sure, so why not just give you the benefit of the doubt?  Just because your father was Osama bin Laden doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate against you.
After all, our American soil is magical, and can do what no other soil on Earth can do.  It can turn 100% illegal alien babies into Americans!  Presto!  Man!  No other nation on Earth has soil that can do that!  We are so blessed.  Why, I look forward to one day seeing bin Laden Jr. running for President.  Wouldn’t that be special?

To recap: natural born citizen misconceptions begin with not understanding the adjective relationships.  Followed by erroneously presuming that the words are a term of art, -which leads to supporting theories not rooted in natural membership but legal membership, or both, combined or separate.

Four possibilities, and only one is correct.  Namely, the one explained by the word “natural” and the underlining of the word “born”.  The others cannot explain those two factors.  Only overlapping terms used to eliminate ambiguity and fictional misconceptions can’t do that.  A term of art that’s fictional can’t really explain what natural citizenship is.

It is membership by natural connection to one’s national group via blood relationship inheritance of nationality from parents who are members.  That is what is known as nationality by jus sanguinis, which means “by right of blood”.  The other means of citizenship is by jus soli, or “by right of soil”.

Of course soil produces no rights, other than legal rights via native-birth designated as a legal basis for a government’s gift of citizenship to the alien-born who have no natural right to membership in the national group, -or… a dictator’s command assignment of nationality giving him power over all souls born within his dominion, -just like the basis of ownership on a feudal estate or slave plantation.

Everything born on or of the property of the owner belongs to him, including not just born of seed and sow, sheep and cow, goat and fowl, but of souls as well.  Human property bound by chains of debt, slave ownership, or required allegiance.

In Britain, they embraced the doctrine of allegiance for life; “once an Englishman, -always an Englishman.” without any innate human or natural right to belong to the people and nation of one’s own free choice instead of inescapably born a slave for life to one’s inherited nationality.

But those crazy Americans believed that people had a right to not only join another nation but to actually reject, abjure, and renounce their own sovereign monarch, -his Royal Majesty!  The nerve of those uppity Americans!  -thinking they are not obligated to bow to their king!

Their attitude was the fault of those darn ideas about having some unalienable natural rights that were above the Divine Rights of Kings.  One of those rights was the right to belong to their parent’s group, or as adults to choose another group to belong to by abandoning the nationality with which they were born.

That nationality derives from their blood relationship to the parent members to whom they were born.  National membership based on birth location is unrelated to that natural right which is based solely on descent, inheritance, blood relationship, natural birthright.

If one is a member of one’s nation due to where one was born, then one is not a natural member of the nation and has no natural right to its citizenship.
Such persons are 14th Amendment citizens allowed American citizenship if born in America, albeit to aliens.  They are children of legal immigrants who are fellow members of American society, and subject to the full authority of the national government.

Barack Obama’s father was not such an immigrant, and thus the son born to him was not such a citizen.  Not a natural citizen, not a 14th Amendment citizen, not a statutory citizen through his mother, not a citizen of any kind.  So, that being true, it’s pretty safe to say that he is not eligible to serve as President.

by Adrien Nash  Feb. 2014



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers