The Abandoned Truth About Nationality & Presidential Eligibility

From Calvin to the Supreme Court; the Conflicting Origins of Nationality

~Most situations that are never contemplated are ever considered when writing general legislation, and thus are overlooked in the law, absent, non-existent and unaddressed.  The qualifications for the Vice-President was an example lacking in the Constitution.  It had to be addressed in the 12th Amendment.  Another such situation similarly not mentioned was that of the citizens of the American States who happened to be born beyond American borders.

Just as almost all natural citizens are born in the country of their parents, so also, birds of the air are almost always safe and free thanks to their ability to fly.  But that which is almost universally true cannot accurately be called or described as universally true even though it essentially is.

One can say that birds are fearless except for their fear of man and cats, -both of which are confined to the ground by gravity.  And yet outside of that which people are normally conscious of, there is another thing that they fear, something out of the ordinary, -something that gets almost no attention at all, and yet it is very real and very deadly.  That something is hawks that not only eat things like mice but also, perhaps exclusively, eat other birds, -cannibals of the bird species.

When they are around, you will not see any other birds, as I’ve witnessed when on occasions I’ve seen a hawk perching on my bird feeder structure.  When that threatening reality is present, that which is almost universally true is seen for what it is; something that is not without exception.

Similarly, some American children are the rare exceptions because they were not born in America and yet they are American by their inherited political nature.  Congress first mentioned them in the Naturalization Act of 1790.  It’s not that there was a risk that they would be viewed as aliens since they would automatically inherit their father’s nationality.  Rather, it was that they might be considered to be ineligible to be the President.

That wouldn’t matter if they were all low-lifes, but they happened to be the best of the best in a sense, -the prime class of educated, and successful American families, -the segment of society from which future leaders would come, including the sons of American Ambassadors, -some of whom would be born while their parents were serving overseas.

The collateral damage of over-looking foreign-born Americans was the exclusion of such sons from eligibility for the top leadership position.

Imagine John Quincy Adams,(6th President of the United States) the son of the future second President John Adams, (-a direct descendant of the Puritans five generations earlier, having no direct foreign lineage back to the founding of the colonies) who accompanied his father to Europe as a child.

Imagine if he were to have been born abroad while his father was serving as an American Ambassador for nearly a decade in Europe and England, -a son who might have served heroically as an officer in the War of 1812, and helped turn the tide toward victory.

Imagine someone asserting that he was not qualified to be President (even though he was the son of the second President), because he failed to enter the world within U.S. borders.  THAT was the unacceptable collateral damage of a common law view of nationality that in a lesser case could have been inflicted against any worthy foreign-born American patriot who was ready to lead his nation.

Why would someone hold such a view?  For a very strong reason.  It was “the law”, or so it appeared.  It was the common law of England which applied still in all of the colonies that became sovereign American nations.  Everyone schooled in the law was schooled first and foremost in English law and the English common law that grew out of English court decisions.

Each of the colonies / State republics had their own body of legislated law as well since common law did not cover everything under the sun in America, but the only element of common law relevant to nationality was that which was central to the issue of presidential eligibility.

The Constitution required that the President be a natural born citizen, but there were two schools of thought as to what that meant, and they were not talking to each other about its actual meaning.  So an unspoken schism existed in the minds of the authorities of the founders’ generation, -and beyond.  It all boiled down to very, very fundamental things, -things of nature and the organizing principles of life.

In order to grasp the big picture, we need to rise above the entire realm of human society to see starkly different influences in human affairs, and see how they competed and clashed.  Then we can apply that understanding to the situation in America and thereby understand the truth as well as the confusion.

The big picture begins long before human governments were established, and progressed as man progressed from a primitive state to a civilized state.  The several elements of the puzzle are: Unity, Superiority, Individuality, and Equality.  Each is from a different realm entirely but together they form the matrix of life, overlapping and bumping into each other and even going to war against each other.

But before all of those factors came along, a primal, “a prior” factor first existed, without which nothing would exist because life would not exist.  That factor is Uniformity.  It makes life as we know it possible.  Life as we do not know it would be life without uniformity.

In such a world lions could breed with zebras, hyenas with gazelles, sharks with whales, etc.  The off-spring would be unrecognizable to the mother.  But with uniformity, the off-spring are identical to the parents; same genus, species, and usually the same breed.  The mother recognizes her young as something of herself and develops a bond with her young.  [That bond is part maternal and part species related.  Animal mothers or wanna-be mothers will adopt young of other species but will prefer members of their own species.]

That bond, and the bond between adults who form a mating, monogamous relationship, are the foundations of human society as well.  They result in the first factor of living beings, which is Unity.  Without those bonds there would be no families.  Mothers would abandon their young and males would abandon the females they impregnate.  Life would be unable to continue.

Unity results in the evolution of societies as families grow, and form new families, and new clans of related families.  A number of clans living together would constitute a tribe, as is seen in the stories of the children of Israel as told in the Bible.  Israel (aka Jacob, grandson of Abraham) had twelve sons, and each of them was the source of the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel.

An outsider might join himself to one of the tribes but he would not be a natural member of the tribe because he was not of its uniform source, -the blood of its ancestors that all descendents shared.  The outsider’s membership in the group was not by blood and thus was not by natural right but would be granted as a conditional gift.  That is directly analogous to admission to membership in a nation via nationality law making an allowance for outsiders and their children.

Just as Uniformity and Unity represent both the animal and human realms, so also does the other facet of the natural world, and that is Superiority.  It gave rise to the justification for the rule of kings over their fellow humans.  It is based on the natural world in which the stronger dominate the less strong, males dominate females, adults dominate the young.

First in the pecking order is the alpha male.  He is the strongest of them all and it is by right of his might that he is the head of the group.  He is likely to be older than the younger and weaker members, just as older brothers dominate younger brothers.

The Natural Law that the warring human world derived from the natural pattern of the preeminence of superior strength is the law of rightful leadership, -with, in effect, might making right, -as in the right to be leader and dominate others.

The Natural Law of Superiority by strength comes with an awful Siamese twin capable of great injustice.  It is the firm belief not just in one’s own individual superiority, but in the inferiority of all who are not of one’s own uniform group, -the group that is derived from Unity of origin.

That extends not just to weaker and inferior individuals but to entire outsider groups, -groups identified by language, ethnicity, religion, and race.  If they all are inferior, then it is the right of the superior to be their master because that is the law of the natural order of nature and man is a part of that order.

But in a world highly influenced by religious concepts, that is a direct affront to the values of religious or spiritual beliefs based on the other aspect of Natural Law, which is Equality,

You see, there are two kinds of nature; there is physical nature and there is spiritual or philosophical nature.  The higher consciousness of humans rises far above the animal level and it is that spiritual nature of man that finds itself in conflict with the physical nature patterned on the animal kingdom.

That made for an innate conflict for nations with a Judeo-Christian society and Church influence.  On one hand, the strongest of warlords was the person that the people should be subservient to, he being the man who was king by superior power and the conquest victories that such power achieved.

On the other hand you had a higher natural law of the spirit, -one in which all men are created by their creator as equal individuals, -with none having a natural right to make slaves or serfs or servants out of one’s fellow humans because they have natural rights that are equal to the rights of the strong man.

You can see, these two worlds are inherently at war, -with each view striving for preeminence.  If the strong man wins, everyone not close to him may lose to different degrees because of his tyrannical actions.  If Equality wins, then everyone but the strong man and his supporters wins and everyone is free, -unless many believe to some degree in the rule of Superiority, -then some aren’t so free, -as was the case in the Southern slave States.

It wasn’t that Southerns viewed themselves as superior to their fellow white folks.  Rather, they viewed beings of the African race as inherently inferior, and possible cursed by God according to a baseless presumption about Noah cursing one of his sons and that son becoming the father of the cursed African race.

So within the individual psyche of people, they might embrace both contrary rules of Natural Law; the spiritual Law of Equality for themselves and their own kind, as well as the animal Law of Superiority.  You know which one monarchs highly favored.

They favored it too much, and were raised strongly indoctrinated in it, -being taught by loyal royal sycophants that the population of their kingdom existed in God’s scheme of things solely for their benefit since they were so inherently superior to all.  That was the world’s ultimate brain-washing, and it produced poisonous results since it infected also, to a lesser extent, the entire nobility and aristocracy.

Anyone who rejected that aspect of Natural Law and embraced the higher, spiritual aspect of Natural Law known as Natural Rights (based on Equality) was a serious threat to the legitimacy of the status quo.  The tyrannical actions of the aristocratic British Parliament pushed the Americans totally into the opposing camp and they grew to reject the law of Superiority and embrace the law of Equality instead.  But that left the law of Unity unaddressed and unsettled.

Superiority and Equality had nothing to do with the issue of natural belonging, -of nationality, of the origin and basis of citizenship.  Common law addressed the issue of national belonging and thus citizenship but it did so in a legal manner and not a natural manner.

What would be the position of the new nation if natural law were followed instead of British common law?  The answer was located in the issue of the natural law of Individuality, -in conjunction with the law of Unity.

If the designer of mankind had fashioned humans with a spirit of Individuality, as a facsimile of the creator’s autonomous nature and not as drones and lemmings, then each individual had certain rights, and thus all individuals, -made from the same mold of the creator’s nature, had equal rights since there weren’t multiple molds with one being superior to the others.  One of those human rights fit perfectly with the natural law of Unity.

In nature, no other mother has a right to a mother’s young.  They belong solely to her and her monogamous mate.  They all together form a unit, -a unity, a union that is inseparable until the young become young adults.

To also enjoy the same unity of family and family group, humans have a natural unalienable right to reject anything that violates that right.  All civilized governments recognize and respect that natural right, and do not pretend that such a right is something that is given by any authority of men but is a primal right of all equal sentient beings, -beyond the authority of government to nullify or regulate.

So, not only as human animals but also as human individuals, people have an inherent unalienable right for their young to belong to them, and to also belong to their greater family, and the groups of which the parents are members.  Those groups include the village, town, city, county, state, and nation of which the parents are members, -and probably also natives.  That is their right of belonging.  That fact is where a conflict arises with the common law rule of nationality.

The common law of nationality was invented for the benefit of foreigners who needed to be viewed as (or equal to) Englishmen in order to not be blocked from certain important rights, including the right to inherit land in England, -which was limited to Englishmen only.  The English high court in the Calvin case got around the law by simply changing the focus from one being an English native to being a subject of the English King.

Any immigrant foreigner could be subject to the king and yet not be English.  But though he could not become an Englishman, his children could, -simply by being born in and under the dominion of the king, -thus making them, like sons of Englishmen, fellow born subjects of the king as well.

By that court opinion, the focus of nationality shifted away from the natural Unity of the native people of the nation and to instead the over-arching authority of the king over all souls within his dominion.  Thus the alien-born and those born of natives were unnaturally lumped together under one single principle-less legal concoction defined by the arbitrary factor of where one was born (within the boundaries) as well as to whom one was born (one subject to the national authority -meaning not a foreign ambassador or invader).

That is an amalgamation of two things that are unrelated except by the fact that they cover two different types of persons who are both subject to the same sovereign.

Under the natural law of Unity, -of natural belonging and natural membership, -along with individual rights, it doesn’t matter where in the universe one’s child is born.  One’s child belongs to him and her who gave it life and are its parents, -and to the groups of which they are members, beginning with the immediate family.

That principle of nature cannot possibly make one a member of a group in which one is an outsider.  But by the power of government or judicial authority, it can be decreed that the children of outsiders, if born within the insider’s borders, will be accepted as members also, -even from birth.

That is a man-made form of belonging, a legal form, and though it was not allowed by Parliament in the case of Calvin, it was forced into being by the decision of the judges that heard his case.  From then on the rule became that it was not the children of Englishmen alone who were English, -if was anyone born subject to the king, -whether English-born or alien born.

That was the common law of Britain and the colonies.  An amalgamation of outward circumstances brought together by judge-made law.  Since the subject of being born subject to the king was made moot by the fact that very few sons were born of foreign Ambassadors in England or America, nor of invading foreign armies, the only element that received any attention was the other one, -the location of one’s birth.

Born within the sovereign territory of the nation?  Then that makes you a subject.  Or a citizen.  But cracks in that seeming simplicity could be spotted by anyone who looked closely.  Native Americans were the prime example of how artificial the seemingly natural simplicity of the common law rule of nationality was.  They were totally unknown to the common law.  Their situation did not exist in Britain.  It had never been adjudicated by any judge ever.

They were born within the borders of the American States, and yet they were not deemed to be citizens.  So birth place alone was a fraud and was not the sole criterion of nationality.  It was something else.  That something else was the same thing that had come to be ignored, namely; the requirement of subjection which in special circumstances was juxtaposed against opposing sovereignty.

Just as Ambassadors are not deemed to be subject to the sovereign authority of the government in which they serve, so also Native Americans were not subject either since they retained their own sovereignty as autonomous nations.  The federal government could not give them orders that it could give to citizens, and neither could it do likewise to visitors from abroad.  The most fundamental order that a government can give is the order that it can only give to its men; -the order to bear arms in national defense.

New York CONSTITUTION 1777

XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man ["every" includes immigrants as well] who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.

And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.  ~  ~  ~

The U.S. government could not order Native Americans to bear arms for it and to fight their own people.  They were exempt from such sovereign federal authority, -as were also all foreign guests and visitors, -not just foreign Ambassadors and their children.  So being actually subject to “the king”, aka;  big daddy federal government, actually did after all mean something beyond merely obeying civil laws.

Required subjection wasn’t just unimportant words that could be overlooked with the rationalization that “well everyone is subject to the law and to government authority”.  The fallacy of that view is not that everyone is subject to the civil law, which is true, but that everyone is subject to all government executive authority and political law, which is not true.  Some are not subject!  But almost everyone is, -like some 98% or so if you include females.

The danger to the nation comes not from the 98% but from the very, very long shot of someone from the 1-2% being mistakenly assumed to be among the 98% and then being elected President of the United States.

What such a person’s motives might be would be unknown except through the words that he publicly speaks and writes.  But if he is among the 1-2% and yet is elected President anyway, then he is a dishonest person since he would have no honest right to be President.  Then his words would also be dishonest and thus believing them would result in being deceived.

When the colonies severed their ties to Britain’s government, they did not abandon the British system of law which was the legal foundation of all of them.  It was not the problem.  The problem had been men of government ignoring the law and the principles on which English liberty was grounded.

New York CONSTITUTION 1777:

XXXV. “And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1775, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.”

All colonists agreed on the necessity of abolishing the authority of British rule (not British law), but not all of them understood that in replacing it, a new system of human rights had to be put in place, -one that would never permit the civilian rule of man over men, superior over inferior (except with the inherent contradiction of slavery being accepted by entire regions of the nation).

That required instituting principles of Natural Rights in place of doctrines of royal and divine Rights of Kings.  One of those rights was in direct conflict with the well established, institutionalized tradition of the common law in America, and that right was regarding the basis of nationality.

By nature, one gradually comes to fit in and be a part of the group into which one is born and in which one is raised, -within one’s own family and one’s society.  But that is not a natural principle of belonging, -it is simply the common phenomenon of acculturation.  It does not take into account the nature of the parents to whom one was born, nor the values with which they raise their children, -values with may be in direct conflict with the values of the society into which one was born.

Children born of strict, medieval-minded, male-dominated Muslims who reject fundamental American values are a prime example.  The traditions that they embrace are abominable to all Americans, including such things as the honor killing of one’s own children, -child marriages, and so forth.  They are among us but are not of us, so simply being born into a society does not make one a member of it.

Something more elemental is needed, and that something is being born of members, -members who are of the same culture, the same values, and the same blood connection.  The society’s values and culture are transmitted to the young by parents who possess them.  Outsiders may or may not possess them.  Some do, and even far more so than natives that take everything for granted and have no concept of how fortunate they are.

Such outsiders produce children like Marco Rubio and Tex Cruz, Rich Santorum and Nikki Haley.  In totally embracing American values, they are more American than most natives of America.  But what about their citizenship?  What is its nature?  By what is it defined?  By common law or natural law?

Which one determines the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is?  That is the question that has gone unanswered since the Constitution was first written.  “Authorities” have embraced both views with neither view gaining clear ascendance.  That is because the authority of common law nationality has never been settled when it comes to the presidency.  It has been illegitimately settled when it comes to nationality alone.

That was done by the Supreme Court in 1898 when it ruled that the nationality clause of the 14th Amendment means the opposite of what it meant when it was written thirty years prior.  That travesty of overthrowing the actual understood meaning of its words and ruling just the opposite to be correct, was a good thing for the children born in America of foreigners because it officially made them into Americans even if their father was too unmotivated or unable to learn English to ever become an American citizen.

Previously, they would have had to personally be naturalized as adults in order to be American citizens because it didn’t matter where one was born since the policy of the federal government was to either ignore the common law State citizenship, accepting only inherited citizenship or naturalized or statutory citizenship, or to not question the origin of the State citizenship of those applying for passport papers. To have attempted such an examination would have been a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone.

But where it drew the line was in regard to children born within U.S. borders to foreign visitors, then brought back to Europe and raised as foreigners, but who one day (as adults) requested an American passport under the assumption that they were probably American citizens since their mother gave birth to them while in America (presumed common law citizenship).

There was no law at all covering such arcane situations and so they had to be dealt with as matters of executive branch policy, -and that policy was to deny such a request on the basis that such a person was not an American citizen since they were born subject to a foreign power and not American authority.  That not only violated natural law but also common law when viewed realistically.

As guests in America, the parents of such a person were not subject to American authority, and subjection was a requirement of the common law (although it was never adjudicated what that actually meant and what it did not mean.)

After the U.S. v  Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898, common law citizenship officially transcended the State level and was adopted at the national level, -making both State and national policy and law the same for the first time.  Thus the native-born children of immigrants were all deemed to be Americans because by the common law, they were born within American territory and were supposedly subject to the authority of the American government, -just as had been the tradition in Britain following the Calvin case.

Immigrant-born children were thereby acknowledged as being citizens, -but what about the issue of presidential eligibility?  That opinion of the court settled nothing when it came to that issue because the true meaning of what a natural born citizen is had never been defined by any lawfully constituted authority, nor was it in that case.

So the question is: “Is it defined purely by the common law or purely by Natural Law?’

It occurs to me that the answer is knowable but it has been mostly an answer determined by the perspective of each beholder.  Any lawyer / authority in the young and evolving nation who was schooled in the highly respected British law and common law, would have held a respectful deference to the rule of the common law and its manner of determining nationality, oblivious to its innate conflict with Natural Rights, -not to mention international relations.

What was that conflict?  It was and is a sword of contention that goes straight to the heart of human existence.  It splits those who stand for fundamental American values from those who unconsciously side with the powerful over the powerless, Superiority over Equality, Multiplicity over Unity, human mandate over Natural Rights, the Government over The People.  It goes to the two questions that are at the heart of human life:

“Who owns you?” and “Do humans have unalienable natural rights?”

If you actually own yourself, then that means that you at least possess a natural property right, with that property being yourself.  But it would not stop at yourself because your natural right of self-ownership would include your children as well, and your spouse because they would be an extension of who and what you are.  And it would be inseparable from a right to belong to each other, as well as to your greater family, and the greater groups of which you are a part, including the group known as your country.

It would mean that you have an innate right to be a member of your society and nation, -the land of which you are a native.  And it would mean that that right is inviolable and untouchable by government because it supersedes the authority given to the government by those who created it.

So if you possess the right of all individuals to own themselves and their progeny, and to belong to each other, then the common law crumbles, -the common law sky under which all have lived wouldl fall because it declares that you belong to government, and also that government policy, tradition, court opinion, or legislation, determines whether or not you will be accepted as a member of your own people, your own society. Your nationality is either governed by the rules that the government makes or it is determined by primal natural rights that supersede government.

But the right to belong to the land of your birth and maturation is different from the right to belong to your own people.  That was demonstrated by the 1898 case that prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to make common law nationality the policy of the American government.  It involved the conflict between nature and acculturation.

A young Chinese man (Wong Kim Ark) was denied re-entry into the U.S. at the San Francisco port upon returning from his second visit to his grandparents in China.  The federal agent in charge deemed him to not be an American citizen (despite having been born and raised in San Francisco) since he was born of foreigners, but even worse, of parents who were of a race which was barred from U.S. naturalization.

In the government’s eyes, he needed a Visa from an American Embassy in China in order to enter his own country. (!)  He was an alien to American society, as were all Chinese, so why would he be considered to be an American?  Nature argued against it.  Naturally belonging to one’s own people argued against it.  His own people were from across the globe.  Why should he not be considered to be born of them and not born of us?  Something had to give.  Reason and natural law or justice and equality.  A super classical conflict of different elements of existence.

The 14th Amendment, whose interpretation would decide the issue, was intended to make citizens of all the freed slaves, -not make citizens of all the children of immigrants who failed to become Americans, but its wording was so open to various interpretations that it could easily be extended beyond its public purpose to include them.

Those in Congress who passed it were aware of its innate ambiguity and understood that once it became a part of the Constitution, then the Supreme Court could change it in ways that Congress was politically unable to do.  And that is just what the court did.

By a split vote it sided in favor of the common law rule of nationality being accepted at the national level, but neither its opinion nor the 14th Amendment addressed the issue of the fundamental basis by which citizenship is acquired.

Was Natural Law supreme or was Common Law supreme, or were they both just kind of taken together but with neither openly acknowledged.  Like natural children and adopted children in one family.  No answer was ever given to the question: “Why am I an American?  Is it because I was born in America or because I was born of Americans?  Is one sufficient or are both necessary?”

That conflict will be invisible to almost everyone because almost everyone is among the 98% who are both and thus fit the description of one who is a citizen by the prescription of the common law.  But what of the tens of thousands of American children born abroad?

No one cares about their plight because they don’t have a plight since the law declares them to be citizens of the United States and has done so since 1790.  See the short-coming in that?  I didn’t think so.

It is what the law does not declare them to be that is the problem.  It does not declare them to be natural born citizens.  So are they or are they not natural born citizens and why should anyone care?

They would only have a concern if their favored candidate for President was born abroad.  In that case, either something very right will prevail or something very wrong will prevail.  Justice or injustice?  That is what this all boils down to.  Who does not get to be President? Since the President can save or ruin our future, the question could not be of greater importance.

Is the term “a natural born citizen” a term of the common law and therefore covers all children of aliens?  Or is it a term of Natural Law and only covers children of citizens?  Can the commander of all of the American military and nuclear power be someone born to and raised by aliens, even in a hostile foreign land?  Is that what the founding fathers intended to allow the nation to be subjected to?

But there’s a more precise question that should be asked first, and it goes beyond using the word “alien” to describe the parents of one born of foreigners.  It must use a more descriptive label because reality is more complicated than the simple noun alone might indicate.  It is the question: “Can the American President be someone born in the U.S. to non-immigrant aliens?”

The federal government clearly delineates between immigrant aliens and non-immigrant aliens because the latter do not have Green Cards allowing permanent U.S. residency, and may even be here illegally.

We must answer that question before attempting to answer whether or not the President can, by the common law upheld in the Wong decision, be born of immigrant alien parents.

If we cannot find and identify the principles and precedents that determine the answer to the most extreme scenario, then we surely will be blind to them in the more moderate scenarios.  And that has been the case throughout American history.

No one addressed the most extreme scenario in order to determine what the principles are that  needed to be identified to answer the question about nationality and the presidency.  The ignorance of endless generations, and the brain-washing resulting from the power of British law on the minds of American jurists has never lead anyone to trace the source of nationality back to its origin.  They all simply stopped at the common law and the Calvin case, and went no further, and so they remained in ignorance regarding the true nature of nationality, -gazing instead at the mirage of the common law compound that joins the disparate elements of natural and human determinants.

I suspect that the founders and framers of the state and national Constitutions saw the world through the lens of philosophical Natural Law and Natural Rights, while those who came after them, those who did not have to ever pledge their lives, liberty, fortunes and sacred honor to a treasonous rebellion for the sake of Freedom, only saw the world through the lens of the old, the traditional, the established  strong hand of government, and the common law that pertained to a monarchy and its subjects, and not to a democratic union of free sovereign republics and free people.

I suspect that the evidence of such a split between the founders and the neo-loyalists of the British system was left in the earliest legislation passed by the first Congress and later changed by the third Congress.  I suspect that the split was along party lines, and there was a change of power in Congress what resulted in a shift that left a lasting impression in the legal record that no one has ever adequately explained, but for which I have a new theory.  It is seen in the first and second naturalization acts; 1790 and 1795.  A change was made and its purpose is still misunderstood today.

If a child of Americans is born abroad, that fact changes nothing because all such children are born (latently) subject to their parents’ government and will be actively subject at adulthood.  But if such a child never lives in the U.S. but marries and produces a child in the foreign land of his birth (or any other) his child will not be a natural citizen of the United States, and will not even be an American because he will be a native-born child of the native-born parents of another country.  By American law he will not inherit his American parent’s citizenship.

That law is as old as the nation and was an element of the first naturalization act in 1790.  It was added as a means of drawing a limit on inherited American citizenship for persons who had no connection to America and who were born subject to the foreign power of their land of native-birth.

Americans did not originate that aspect of nationality law.  It was borrowed almost verbatim from the British nationality act of 1775 (if I recall correctly).  Our version stated: “-the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

Those words reveal two immensely important facts.  First; the citizenship of the children of citizens descends (from father to child).  It is not acquired from, nor granted by government.  It is not tied to the location of the mother at birth.  Instead it is the result of inherited national membership which is the “right” of every child of every American everywhere in the world, -except the second-generation of the foreign-born.

That limitation was preceded by this declaration of fact: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens

But the sentence that precedes it states: “And the children of such person (foreign father) so naturalized,…shall also be considered as citizens of the United States” (like their father).

Why did the authors change the language when one sentence follows right after the other?  That had to be quite deliberate.  Why change the terminology from that used to describe the children of naturalized foreigners to that describing only those who are eligible to be President?

The words “natural born citizen” appear nowhere in the Constitution or American life except in regard to the type of citizen who is eligible to be President.  They have no other use.

All other offices (House & Senate, as well as appointments) require only that one be a citizen of the United States. [Other nations do not allow naturalized citizens to serve in their national legislative bodies, with our neighbor Mexico being one of them.  But the young nation was an undeveloped land being enlarged in part by the arrival of valued immigrants, and they were welcome to be Americans and to be active and involved citizens, -citizens who were equal to those whom they joined in citizenship.  But no naturalized citizen was allowed to be President after the first generation.]

So there in that text, Congress identified foreign-born Americans as being not only Americans by natural right of inheritance but also as citizens eligible to be President.  That meant that their citizenship had nothing whatsoever to do with the rule of the common law.  That identification of them as being the natural born citizens that nature made them, was to protect their right to serve as their country’s leader if destiny opened that door one day.

But it came at a cost since the issue of who was eligible to be President was a zero-sum game.  Identifying them as natural born citizens meant something profound for others, for others who absolutely had to be born within the United States or they weren’t even citizens, much less eligible to be President, and they were the sons of immigrants who were not Americans when their sons was born.

If Americans born of Americans were natural born citizens, (regardless of birthplace) then common law Americans born of foreigners were not, even if their father became an American the very day after their birth.  To a significant percentage of the voting population, that did not seem fair since they themselves were such sons or related to them.  See any parallels to today?

So, if that language was allowed to stand, all such American sons would be disenfranchised from the American right to serve as the President of the United States one day.  A resolution was provided by the third Congress in 1795 when it revised and expanded the naturalization act, but the solution was merely to change that which was clear to that which was not clear and was thus unsettled.

It relabeled the foreign-born American children by combining their declaration of citizenship with that of the children of naturalized fathers in one sentence, calling both groups of children “Citizens of the United States”.  That protected them from what happened to young Mr. Wong Kim Ark, -barred from re-entering his own country, and also guaranteed their civic citizenship rights and eligibility to elected office.

SEC.1 ~ “He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation… that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.”

“SEC. 3.  And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:   Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been a resident of the United States”.

Only it didn’t clarify nor protect their eligibility to serve as President.  Thus one could assert that since foreign-born Americans are no longer openly identified as natural born citizens, then maybe they aren’t.  And… maybe native-born children of foreigners are.

It opened the door wide for speculation and that was adequate for those who wanted to share in the right to dream of the possibility of being President one day.  Of course if the parents were wealthy and influential foreigners who had emigrated to America, it would have been seen as something more than the right to dream, but as the right to succeed.

So with the dropping of the wording identifying foreign-born Americans as natural born citizens, an ambiguous opening was created which might one day be successfully exploited by claiming the supremacy of the common law nationality rule in America.

And that is exactly what happened in 2008 from the perspective of those who supported the eligibility of Barack Obama, -which didn’t include the leadership of his own party.  They knew that he was not eligible but they also knew that most Americans did not know that and they could get away with offering his up as their candidate.  What they did, successfully.

Nothing in American law or court opinion had ever spelled out what the basis of citizenship was in the United States.  But that does not mean that it was unknown.  It was thoroughly explained by David Ramsay, -a founding father, jurist and historian who was there throughout the revolution and founding of the nation.  He explains in crystal clear terms the truth of the matter regarding American citizenship.

I’ve written an extensive exposition on his dissertation on the subject, and together all questions are answered and all doubt is eliminated. [It is not yet upload to the internet but will be by the end of April I expect]

The common law Americans who asserted their right to be President base their certainty on the common law meaning of a “natural-born subject”, claiming that both terms are directly related, and the American version means the same as the British common law version.

But that argument is seen to be without foundation when one looks at how the American version was written by the man who suggested it as a necessary requirement to wield the power of the Command in Chief.  He, John Jay, future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and associate of General Washington, underlined the word “born” (which I’ve extensively analyzed elsewhere).

There is no conceivable rational reason to ever underline either of the modifiers in the British term “natural-born subject”.  The false logic that equates it with natural born citizen argues that the term “natural-born” is the same in both terms, -only “subject” is changed to “citizen”.  That means that the individual words do not have individual meaning, -which means that they are only taken together as a two-word unit that modifies the nouns “subject” and “citizen”.

But one cannot underline, as John Jay did, an individual word that has no individual meaning.  You either underline both of them or neither of them.  The fact that he underlined “born” indicates that both of the two words were actually individual adjectives with individual meaning, -one of which he wished to emphasize.

That further means that the word “natural” does not pertain to the word “born” anymore than the word “wise” pertains to the word “old” in “wise old man”.  Where is there such a term as “wise old”?  Similarly, there is no such term as “natural-born”.  Instead the three-word term is an expression combining “natural citizen” with “born citizen”, -just as “wise old man” combines “wise man” and “old man”.

Thus their theory that John Jay could not have possibly used two common English language adjectives in their common usage falls apart.  Their logic holds no water.  That means the words mean what they say and not what the common law had perverted them to mean in the English system by turning them into a sort of legal fiction which categorized together two very different groups of people (natives and foreigners).

If John Jay had not underlined the word “born”, there would be a bit less certainly about what a natural born citizen meant to George Washington, -the man who would first fulfilled its requirement and served as President and Commander-in-Chief.

To him and to those in the constitutional convention with the same vision of fundamental American principles, the words were not a distorted, fictional version of a compound English language term that they were forced to employ to prevent foreign influence at the top of the American government.  The underlining of just one of those words is one more nail in the coffin of the the view that they were still willingly accepting the British common law basis of nationality at the national level.  They were beyond that unnatural legal amalgamation and into and back to that which was by the law of nature.

They were a brotherhood of Liberty-loving countrymen, and no one was allowed into that brotherhood except by being born into it, -born of its members, or sworn into it by a personal solemn oath before a magistrate given in a court of record including swearing allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and openly rejecting and renouncing specifically by name one’s life-long former sovereign.

It was a cutting, -a severing of one’s political umbilical cord to the government of their homeland and the adopting of a new umbilical cord to America.  A divorce from one’s former political husband and marriage to a new one all in one momentous moment.

So membership was only by blood or by oath, -not by birth location even though the States continued to treat the alien-born native “sons of the soil” as citizens.  Such a conundrum and conflict could not find reconciliation and never has.  Instead the conflict is ignored or rejected in the minds of those who embrace the British common law view of citizenship by government mandate.

Those who embrace Liberty and individual rights will not accept  the rules and doctrines of government as being the basis of their natural right to be a member of their own family, clan, country, or nation.

Which one do you embrace?  Are you a loyalist toward British common law and the supreme authority of government?  Or are you a patriot toward the supremacy of Natural Law and natural belonging?

Who do you believe owns you?  Yourself, or the Government?  Who do you believe has a natural right to be an American, outsiders and their off-spring, -or only insiders, Americans, and theirs?

That question doesn’t ask about “the right” to be an American.  It asks about the natural right, because the presidency is not precluded to those with a natural right but only to those with merely a legal right to be Americans.

Was your father an alien when you were born?  Was he an immigrant to America with a Green Card granting a right to permanent residency?  If so then you were born with a legal right to be an American thanks to Supreme Court opinion in the Wong case based on the 14th Amendment based on the common law based on the Calvin case opinion that was over 400 years ago.

But that means that you are not eligible to be President because it means that you are not a natural citizen of the United States.  You are merely a legal citizen.  A common law citizen.  A 14th Amendment citizen.  A Wong opinion citizen.  A Calvin case citizen.  And therein lies the difference.

Natural versus legal.  There is no middle ground in logic nor fact, but there is plenty of motive to ignore and deny both.  And that is exactly what the supporters of the Obama regime do and have done from the beginning.

Will they succeed at it forever?  Possibly.  But a new wind is blowing in America.  But no little wind will move a ship as big as the American political landscape.  It would require an enormous wind, -or… a hand full of judges willing to do the right thing.  We have so far not seen a single judge in America who was so willing.  That is a very, very bad sign.

Why is it so bad?  Because it is very likely not due simply to ignorance on their part, because curiosity can naturally intercede when uncertainly is present, but probably due to one thing and one thing only, and that is fear.

Everyone whose eyes have been opened in resent years has come to strongly suspect and see proof that the law of the jungle has returned to dominate the “rule of law” in America.  The law of Superiority has replaced the law of Equality.

The government alpha males are now the lords who do not need the permission of the American sheep that they herd as they are able to manage by hook or by crook, with their supporters on the supreme court validating their unconstitutional usurpation of the rightful authority of the States and The People.

When the cards are stacked in the court of courts, then the only things left are revolution or the replacement of those in power who allow and perpetrate the relentless parade of crimes against the American people and the United States Constitution.

by Adrien Nash  April 2014   obama–nation.com

 

Why most citizens of “The United States” can’t be President -pt.2

Which government’s nationality is sovereign over the native-born children of immigrants in America; -the one of their foreign father who is still subject to his own government, or the one of the nation of the State republic in which his children were born?

The new national government, facing a Europe with which it might find itself at war at any time being as it was still ruled by despots, chose to not recognize the children of foreigners as being American citizens nor American nationals. They were foreign nationals born of foreign nationals even though born in America. They were alien-born. A child could not have a nationality that was different from that of the father who produced him.

So the States had one citizenship recognition process while the central government had another, and it was in relationship to something beyond the purview of any State government; namely foreign relations, -along with the conduct of war.
Suppose that a European Prince & pregnant wife had a baby while visiting an American State which by law bestowed its citizenship to all born within its borders, (-without regard to whether or not they were immigrants or merely visitors). Suppose they all traveled back to their European kingdom where the young Prince would grow up. Suppose that he was murdered.

Would it be an issue involving the American government because it involved the murder of an American?
No, because he would not have been viewed as being an American by the American government even though he was a citizen of one of the States.
Suppose he was murdered by his American illegitimate half-brother? Would the nation of the deceased prince view the murder as merely one American killing another, or as an American killing one of their own subjects, -a royal one at that? The question hardly needs to be asked since the answer is so obvious.

His true nationality was determined by blood, not his birth place. They would not care if his half-brother killer was viewed in his home State or home nation as a fully recognized citizen or as a mere American national. “Citizenship” would not be even considered; only nationality. American? or not? It would not be couched as “U.S. CITIZEN, or not?”.
They would view the murderer as a national of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, -without regard to which State republic he was born in and a member of.

Suppose the “American” half-brother had been born in Europe and not America; what would determine his nationality? Answer: Within marriage, the nationality of the head of the family; i.e., the boss and master of the house; the father.
Everyone in the family had one nationality and it was his. They were a single unit within the greater units of county, State and nation. His one vote was the vote of the family unit. A wife, per the wedding vow to obey her husband, yielded to the authority of her husband and his decisions, whether family decisions or political decisions, and she took his name and nationality.

But an out-of-wedlock half-American son might be seen as an American through his mother, -unless the foreign father acknowledged paternity.
The government of the Prince would not be required to recognize such a son as a citizen of the nation because he was illegitimate, perhaps might be a fraud, and perhaps might have been born anywhere, or at least not in his kingdom. Thus, in the founders’ era, the child would probably be stateless, -having no nationality whatsoever, -an international conundrum due to infidelity and illegitimacy.

There are four ways such a child could be deemed to be an American, but only one existed before the 1920’s. One would be if he had been born within one of the State republics that gave the gift of citizenship to those born within its borders, -with illegitimacy not addressed, pro nor con.
Another would be possible if the District of Columbia had a similar allowance thanks to the choice of Congress. But it did not recognize such a child as an American having dual citizenship because dual citizenship was not recognized.

It would have been different if born of a European Princess and an American man. Then he would be a freak because he would be a cross between an non-royal American father and a royal heir to a European throne. In such a case, the father might acknowledge paternity and thus provide U.S. citizenship to his bastard son.
But understand that the American laws for a long time did not acknowledge the situation of children without married parents, nor the situation of dual nationality within marriage.
A bride, though foreign, became an American by marrying an American, thus one single nationality for them and their children.

Now let’s move forward in time to when a foreign woman who married an American was viewed as retaining her foreign nationality. The nationality of the child was still determined by the American father from the viewpoint of the American government, regardless of how the government of the mother viewed their child.

The child, through a blood connection to the man who fathered it, was seen as an American by blood, and the law recognized such children as Americans. But what if the American parent was the mother?
That changed the situation significantly since by accepted policy, it inherited the nationality of the foreign father, and thus was not an American, -but in time, -with women’s rights and women’s suffrage being recognized by law and constitutional amendment, the nationality of the American mother was deemed to be passed to her child if born abroad via a foreign father. Her child was a statutory citizen by congressional statute.

What did such citizenship have to do with any of the States of the union? Nothing. It was purely federal, by federal statute. The laws of her State did not make her child an American via making it a citizen of her State because by then the State’s were out of that business following the federal government totally taking over the administration of immigration and naturalization.

That later switched to American volunteers who were forced to take on the chore after the federal government and the federal INS were stopped in their tracks when the Supreme Court ruled their take-over unconstitutional.
Then there was no entity left with any organization to take on the task other than volunteer organizations. But with massive immigration, they were overwhelmed and finally convinced Congress to act and make the job a federal chore by law, -not merely executive policy.

So a child of an American mother and foreign father could not be deemed to be American by a State statute since State governments were out of the naturalization business. Then such a child would not be a citizen of any State, but purely and solely a citizen of the nation as a whole via the federal government’s law; -a national citizen only (at least until the mother returned to live in one of the States).

Such a citizen would have to be labeled as a citizen of “The United States”, or “The UNITED STATES of AMERICA”. It could not be labeled a citizen of “the united States”, -or a citizen of a State republic because its “citizenship” was strictly federal until it became domiciled as an adult within an individual State.

Another way to become such a citizen would be via birth within the boundaries of federal land in the eras following that in which dual citizenship was not acknowledged. If born in D.C. or on federal land within a State, -or within no State, one also would not be a State citizen but a federal citizen only.

Men who work on such lands for Washington are not officers of “the united States”, because they do not work for any State, but are instead officers of “The United States”, -the entity and name of the national government.
As officers of the United States Government, they do not represent the authority nor interests of the States. They only represent the authority and laws of the national government, and it is quite separate and apart from those of the States.

Keeping the difference straight in one’s mind requires recognizing the difference between the use of the word “united” as an adjective and its use as a part of a title. A national title calls for the capitalization of the major words included in the title, while a word used as merely an adjective should not be capitalized even though it makes a label seem more weighty and authoritative.

Let’s look as the name of the nation that has the same initials as our own; the Union of South Africa. One must not fail to capitalize the word “union” because it is a part of the title of the nation, just as one must not fail to capitalize the word “united” when referring to the American nation.

“Union” is not an adjective but is a noun, whereas “united” is an adjective, and when used in reference to the union of the individual States, it need not be, and should not be capitalized, even though everyone does it out of a habit dating back to when most significant nouns were capitalized in formal writing, -as seen throughout the Constitution.

“The united States” is an unambiguous reference to a union of States, whereas if “united” is capitalized, one cannot tell what the reference is made to except by analyzing the context in which it is ambiguously used. In most cases it does not refer to “the general government” of the nation but the union of States.

[addendum: After posting this exposition, I was trying to find out if the Confederacy required an oath of allegiance for citizenship and came across a website seeking the revival of the Confederacy, and it contained this paragraph which shows that I was not the first to understand the difference that capitalization makes:

Remember, or learn if you didn't already know, our founding fathers created the Confederacy in 1778 when they created the Articles of Confederation under which they, with General George Washington, fought and won a war against the British Empire. The Constitution of 1789 was but a more complete contract of government between the various State republics which they began to call the States of America or the "united" States of America.]

So one can see that in the real and unambiguous world, there is a distinct difference between a citizen of “The United States of America” and a citizen of “the united States”, but that difference is so invisible, undetectable, unacknowledged, unimportant, and insignificant that it is completely meaningless, -except… in one very rare and unusual circumstance. That of seeking and obtaining the office of President of the United States.

The Constitution requires that only “a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of the President;”.
So what sort of citizen is a natural born citizen? It is the sort that created each of the State republics and the union that they formed. It was the natural inhabitants or indigenous population of the American colonies and future sovereign States. It was the children of Americans, -people who had American-ness as their common background via their birth to Americans, -almost all of whom were also born in America.

They were all born as the natural citizens of their colonies and States. They were responsible for their common defense, administration of justice, and the operation of their government and civil societies.
They were citizens even while being subjects of the British Crown. They were born as citizens, and since their citizenship was not via a gift of the government that they created but via their blood connection to citizen parents, they were natural citizens. They were citizen-born natural Americans. Just what the Constitution required.

But those born of outsiders, -of foreign immigrants, were not the natural citizens of the colonies or States but were merely legal citizens, even though made legal from birth in some States.

That which is natural cannot, by definition, be made by government, and that which is made by government cannot, by definition, be natural.
It can only be man-made, including citizenship.

No man-made citizen of “The United States” is eligible to be President because they all acquired citizenship via American law which makes an allowance for those of foreign or mixed nationality & blood connection. Some U.S. government citizens are natural born citizens because they were born of citizens within federal territory.

But in the beginning, nearly all natural born citizens were only State citizens since they were born of State citizens and not born out in the western wilderness claimed by the Americans and ceded to the U.S. by the British after the Peace Treaty of Paris was signed.

In fact one could even assert that only federal “citizens” are truly “citizens” of “The United States” (-as apposed to being merely U.S. Nationals as State citizens could be considered) because all citizenship relationships are State relationships involving civic rights and duties, -with the lone exceptions of paying taxes and serving on federal juries. So in reality, State citizenship is/was the dog, and national “citizenship” is the tail. But guess which one wags which in everyone’s mind?

In another sense it would be accurate to state that we are all, in reality, simply Nationals of “The United States”, and not “citizens” since our rights and duties are still quintessentially State rights & duties, -with each individual being a citizen of one of the united States.

Even the duty of national defense can no longer be considered as a national “citizenship duty” because even non-citizens are obligated to serve when called, and sent to prison for refusing. That leaves only the century-old federal taxes on income, and federal jury service, and not many people ever even experience that. So in what sense are we truly “citizens” of the central government of the nation?  Because we are forced to pay federal taxes?

Historically, Americans never had to pay a “tax” on wages and salary because the meaning of the word “income” did not include compensation for time one surrendered in a mutual exchange of labor for money.  That was considered a barter and not an income.  Income was earnings that one’s money or property earned.  So as established, Americans never had any connection to the central government unless called to sit on a federal jury, -or working in interstate law, commerce, or the new central government.

Plenty has been illegitimately and unconstitutionally altered from the way our nation was founded, but the basic structure has not. We live our lives as local and State citizens, although convenient transportation makes changing one’s State very easy, yet the functions of government, for the most part, have not been ceded to the federal government, so we live and serve as citizens of our home towns, cities, counties, and States and do not serve as “citizens” of the national government, nor the aggregate nation as a whole. And, our governors have the authority to block our extradition to another state because we are not citizens of any State but one.

One can truly assert that we are still essentially nothing more than citizens of our State republic and merely nationals of our nation, yet our programmed thinking tells us just about the opposite.
To say that we are citizens of our nation is at least half as absurd as saying that we are nationals of our State since we have practically no national citizenship duty at all.

This truth is seen in the actual status of children, and, for over half of American history, women as well. No one considers babies and children (minors) to have any duties of citizenship. They are exactly what a National is, and definitely not what a citizen is. Citizens have CIVIC RIGHTS as well as duties. Children have neither, and neither did America women until they were given the right to vote, and the rights that accompanied it.

Foreign permanent-resident immigrants are treated as U.S. Nationals, -under the protection of the government, and bearing certain responsibilities toward the nation that they have joined. That is why they can be drafted into the U.S. military.  They must answer the call of duty or suffer the consequence even though their natural allegiance and subjection is still to their foreign homeland, and yet American women are not subject to the call of duty even though they are citizens.  They are not subject because they are not of the warrior class gender.  They are the main protected class that is defended.

 

The history of Congressional ignorance regarding American citizenship is appalling. Many of the major and long-standing edicts of Congress have been over-turned by the Supreme Court because they failed to adhere to fundamental American principles of equality.

They passed laws treating naturalized citizens differently than natural citizens, and American women differently than American men. [That was eventually brought to a silent stop, but not completely when it comes to foreign birth involving a foreign parent.]

The most egregious violation was the total implementation of male-dominated citizenship determination.
It was one thing to deem an American husband’s foreign bride to now be an American too, but it was quite another to deem an American bride who married a foreign groom to have forfeited her American citizenship by having done so, (in reciprocity with the foreign nation of the husband).

That was the law of the land, passed by Congress, and signed by the President as the Naturalization Act of 1907. Any child born to such a mother was denied American citizenship up until long past its repealed in 1922 by the Cable Act.

So you can see, citizenship has been quite paradoxical throughout periods in American history as the roles of men and women became ever more equal. But through it all, the meaning of what is a natural born citizen has never changed, -except perhaps at the margins where very odd circumstances might be involved.

The birth and nationality of Barack Obama was not such a circumstance. He was not even in the same ballpark as natural born citizens. He was born subject (solely) to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as his own 2008 election website explained, with that Act applying to both Obama Sr. and all of his children.

Obama openly acknowledged that he was born as a subject of the British Commonwealth and as a future citizen of Kenya once it became an independent nation a few years later, and he has never claimed to be a natural born American citizen, calling himself only a native-born citizen.  But he must have been ignorant of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

It preceded the writing of the 14th Amendment by a few months, and its wording declares that those born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are citizens of the United States [“United” should not be capitalized because it essentially refers to State citizenship for freed slaves. They were not foreigners, nor born of foreigners since the importation of slaves had been banned a half century earlier.]

So even if assumed to have been born in America, he would still be ineligible to be President because he was born subject to a foreign power, and was not a natural citizen of any State since he was born of an outsider.
So an alien father prevented him from being a natural born citizen, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 bars him from even being a citizen at all since his mother was too young for her citizenship to legally be transmitted to her son by a statute that didn’t exist for another 75 years or so.

Some falsely assume that the 14th Amendment,-by its presumed lower standard only requiring that one be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,  over-rode the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but in fact, the authors said just the opposite.

One, when asked, proclaimed emphatically that being subject to American jurisdiction meant being subject to no foreign power. So that meant that dual citizenship was not recognized, and one could not be subject to two separate nations, -just as freed slaves were not.
But to avoid that truth, they float the notion that children, (even babies!) are directly subject to national governments. In fact, people on both sides of the Obama eligibility issue assert that falsehood.

First, only adults are subject to governments. Second, in the Christian and patriarchal tradition, wives were always subject directly to their husbands, -not the government. And their children were directly subject to their mother and father, -not the government.

So their doctrine that any child born in America is automatically subject directly to the Federal government is insanely absurd. The family unit was a vertical hierarchy, -not a horizontal one having each element subject to Big Brother, -the hub. Only the head was subject. The relationship of the children to the government of the nation in which they lived was solely through their father. If he was subject, then one day they would also be. They inherited his subjection, (along with his citizenship) -and fully so if male.

If he was alien, then they were viewed as subject to the foreign power that he remained subject to since national borders do not terminate one’s national obligations.  If one’s nation is attacked, one must heed the call of duty even if living abroad.

So, we have a President who is not only not constitutionally qualified to serve since he is not a natural born citizen of Hawaii nor of the federal government, but is disqualified from even being an American citizen since his father was not an immigrant subject to Washington, but merely a temporary foreign guest still subject to the government of Kenya.  But might he be a naturalized American?

We have no way to know because all records related to him have either been “lost” removed & hidden, classified, closed to inspection, or destroyed. Nothing yet released by his or the Hawaiian government has been legitimate, but what has been released is an attempt to benefit from the ignorance of the American people who do not understand that it does not matter where he was born, -only to whom he was born; -an American father? Or an alien?

Regardless, he is an American National, but that does not make him an American CITIZEN.
He logically can be viewed as being an American, -just as can children brought illegally into the country at a young age, and then raised and schooled as Americans. But being the equivalent to an American National does not make one eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military.

So Barack Obama, being an alien-born child of a non-subject foreign student, is not a natural citizen of any State, -nor of any nation, and regardless of native-birth, all such persons are constitutionally barred from being the President of the United States.
So why is he President?

Because America has become a reflection of the O.J. Simpson jury.

Why most citizens of The United States can’t be President  1 & 2;  pdf -11 pages  revised

by Adrien Nash April 2014 obama–nation.com

The Damnable Doctrine of Nativist Citizenship

In the view of Americans who honor the Constitution, Barack Obama is an on-going violation of its presidential eligibility restriction which bars all who are not natural born citizens, but while together in recognizing Obama’s ineligibility, they are not together in recognizing what a natural born citizen actually is.
Natural citizens result from birth to citizens; new Americans result from birth to Americans without regard to any Earth coordinates or political boundaries, -just as new family members result from birth to married parents without any regard for whether or not they were born in the home that the parents own, or born in a place that others own.

The place and time and duration and difficulty of birth are all irrelevant factors in the immutable right of the mother and father to own their own child. Owning one’s own is a Natural Right, -a right of nature by a law of nature; -the law of natural membership. That is derived from the fact of how nature, -including human nature, is intrinsically wired.
The right to own what is ours is as elemental to the nature of sentient beings as the physiological demand for air is to the nature of the lungs.
No one has a right to take from us that which is rightfully ours, whether it be our things, our children, or our lives.
Our innate sense of that right is not something that is acculturated into us. Rather, it is an element of our primal nature. It does not spring from the granted permission of government or laws. It springs from the core structure of our being.

So we humans innately recognize our right to own what is ours, while governments work to erode that right by making laws and regulations which take that which is ours from us. But that’s another subject.
Just as families have the right to belong to each other, to own what they produce, including their children, so also, countries are cast in the same mold and have a similar right to own what is rightfully theirs.

The ruler of Russia recently demonstrated that in the clearest manner possible by annexing the Crimean peninsula away from the Ukraine and into Russia, based on its right to own the Russian people of Crimea. Russian people belong to mother Russia which is their national homeland and family. Its all based on natural rights although in violation of another nation’s sovereignty.

Sovereignty is based on natural rights also, the same natural right of ownership of one’s own territory, but a right based solely on artificial man-made borders is naturally trumped by a right based on blood, -which is not man-made but is elemental. That is why Germany was allowed to annex territory of its neighbors by the counter-powers of Europe without them feeling a need to go to war.

War only came when Germany invaded and conquered lands that were not occupied by ethnic Germans. That was a violation of the natural rights of the people and governments of unrelated lands. What right did Germany have to steal that which it had no right to own? None. And so war was declared against the aggressor.

The connection to citizenship is that nations, like parents, have a right to include their own within the national family, and that right is also based on blood, -as it has always been except in the history of imperial, colonial powers which based national membership also on the related factor of the location where the new blood-relative happened to enter the world. The place of the birth event.

The event of transition from womb to world is a very brief event when measured by the span of one’s life. In the life of one of 80 years, it could be viewed as a single, initial hour in a span of 175,000 hours, or equated to one foot in a span of about 133 miles. If one could erase that first hour or foot of their life, it would not change in any significant way other than by man-made rules regulating one’s life-long national membership; -rules focused on where that initial event happened to transpire.

Such rules, customs, or policies have only that one brief event in common with the natural right by which one belongs to their own family and country, and yet in the minds of some, it must follow them all the days of their life as an on-going determinative factor in what country they belong to. I don’t say to which country they “naturally” belong to because the location of that event is unrelated to nature, -but altogether connected to and elevated by arbitrary human law left over from an imperial, colonial mandate.
So we see that by nature, families have a right to own their own, and countries and nations do as well. Families have natural members and nations have natural members. In families they are known as “my natural child”. In nations they are known as “our natural citizens”. In both cases they are what they are because they were born that way; a born natural child or a born natural citizen, aka; a natural born child and a natural born citizen.

But in the Matrix of the neo-nativist doctrine of citizenship, the reality of natural citizens is replaced by “naturalborncitizens” or “natural-born citizens” which is viewed as a unitary legal term of artifice not defined by a natural principle as something elemental, but by an artificial, contrived combination of the natural and the man-made resulting in an unnatural compound or amalgamation that unites by human fiat the two factors related to birth; namely where it occurred and to whom it occurred.

But the Matrix of that citizenship doctrine has a built-in conceptual flaw, an internal contradiction which reveals its artificial nature to any person with an unindoctrinated mind. That contradiction is revealed by the word “natural” and its proper meaning and use.
“Natural” does not include an assumed added element of adulteration by an unnatural substance. If your child has a pet white rat and you buy it some natural food to eat, you do not include in your concept of what natural food is the addition of .01 warfarin (the powerful blood thinner). If something so unnatural is added, then the food is no long 100% natural food but is instead poison that will kill the poor creature.

So it is with the addition of the factor of place-of-birth to one’s natural right to belong, and a nation’s right to embrace their own. Nations, like Germany and Russia, disregard where their ethnic own might have been born and focus entirely on the issue of “to whom” they were born.
That is pure natural law with no adulteration by adding the factor of human recognition of the transient birth event’s location. No added factor is relevant to nature, -not on the family level nor on the national level.
Requiring the addition of the factor of birth location is equivalent to requiring that every child be accompanied for life by the placenta of its birth.

The placenta was a factor of birth, just like birth location, -actually far more so since life couldn’t exist without it, -which can’t be said about soil or borders.
One could be born in or on the ocean, in the air, on arctic or antarctic ice or in outer space. The location is irrelevant to life and to exit from the womb. So requiring every child to be accompanied through life by its mother’s placenta would be just as much an artificially imposed rule as that of being accompanied by the even more irrelevant-to-nature location where the event transpired. The placenta was connected to birth but is not an on-going element of life, -as natural bonds are; -the bonds of natural belonging which follow one throughout their life.

A similar comparison would be like parents requiring their children to eat not just the nut or the peanut inside its shell, but to eat the shell as well. The shell came with it but it is not an element of life. The life is in the nut, not the shell. The shell becomes irrelevant as soon as the nut emerges from it, just like the placenta or the place of birth are irrelevant to the life that comes into the world due to the event of birth.

And yet the neo-nativists insist that government and the citizens of the nation must be bound by a rule that the shell must be eaten along with the nut, -they must both be taken together, -the shell must accompany the nut since they have a connection, -regardless of how irrelevant that connection is.

Just ask yourself; “how relevant is birth location to the parents of the royal heir to the throne?”

If the newborn heir was delivered from the womb on foreign soil, would that make him a foreigner and unqualified to be king one day? Of course not?
Well if your child is born heir to the treasure of your American nationality, then why should it be viewed as an alien if its mother didn’t happen to be located on her own country’s soil when the blessed event happened to happen?

Would that make the factor of her blood connection to her own child irrelevant?

If her child belongs to her and its father, and they belong to their country, how could the child belong to them but not to their country as well?

How is their child’s national connection and status any different from the royal heir?

Blood is blood and natural belonging trumps everything else, including man-made borders. Borders aren’t God, borders aren’t nature, borders aren’t natural.

How can they be attached, like a Siamese twin, to the natural factor of natural belonging?
These questions lead to the conundrum of the neo-nativists’ inherent logic error, -the contradiction in their Matrix, and it is seen in the concept of natural rights. As you are probably aware, natural rights are not issued by government but are part of how sentient social creatures are constituted.

We have an innate sense of what our natural rights are, -our nature tells us, -and we know that no one else was created superior to us and endowed with some authority to determine our rights for us.
In other words, there is no element of human-granted privilege as an added factor in what our natural rights are. They are solely 100% natural, (or God-given) and zero percent law-given.
We can see the nature of natural rights, and that nature is identical to the nature of natural membership.

No human-granted element is a part of it. And yet the nativist doctrine asserts that the human-added element of birth location must be added to natural membership or else natural membership can’t exist without it, -or doesn’t exist without it because it is not recognized.
The problem with that is that it is recognized, universally, in every country on Earth. The children of a nation’s citizens are citizens also via blood connection, regardless of birth location. It is written into the laws and constitutions of nations,-not as a stated principle but as a consequent fact.

But those who are indoctrinated with the nativist doctrine of blood-plus-borders are forced to take the position that natural membership doesn’t exist. Only contrived membership can exist, -contrived via the combination of the natural factor with the artificial factor of recognition of man-made borders.

If natural membership exists without the added factor of birth location, then contrived membership is not needed.
If the elemental is sufficient, then the supplemental is superfluous.

In their fantasy doctrine, both are necessary to create what they define as a “natural born citizen”, (quotation marks mandatory) -which is a status that exists in a world without any natural citizens.
They view the common language words “natural born citizen” like some sort of proprietary trademark enshrined in the Constitution and defined by a philosophy of citizenship which pre-dated it but which can’t be found anywhere in any writing.

They claim it is found (but by misconstruence) in the writings of Emmerich de Vattel (The Law of Nations, 1758) but he explicitly stated that the nationality of the child naturally follows that of the father (since he is/was the natural head and defender and provider of the family, along with the owner of both his own children and his wife -who “gave herself” to him in holy matrimony, -accepting his headship under God and vowing obedience upon taking his name for the rest of her life).

If you remove the false foundation of their miscontruence of what Vattel wrote, then their doctrine is left adrift with no basis in anything. That is because the supposed constitutional authority of their (false) interpretation of Vattel’s writing, -an authority which they claim comes via the Supreme Court mentioning* Vattel’s observation that “the natives (or natural born citizens) of a country are the children born in it of parents that are citizens” evaporates when it is seen to not mean what they claim it means. *(Minor v Happersett)
Their whole doctrine hinges on the false assertion that the words “natural born citizen” are a term of legal artifice with a “legal” meaning, and not the simple meaning of what the words themselves convey.

But ask yourself: does this have an assigned, legal meaning: “a natural born heir to the throne”? Or does it simply mean what the words themselves convey, i.e., someone in the line of succession?
Does one need to put those words in quotation marks each time they are written? One does if they have an artificial meaning, like; “a male, first-born son of the monarch, or his heir, -who was born within the royal palace to a mother of royal blood and fathered by the King or the Royal Prince”.

That would be a contrived meaning, -a legal “term of art”

Is one who is a natural born citizen defined by a legal term of art, or by simple natural law? That is the central question and that is where their doctrine flounders because it cannot be both. It will be one or it will be the other.

So, can the words be defined without resort to contrivance, -to combination, to amalgamation, to supposed Supreme Court reference or solely to what they meant when they were first penned by John Jay, (president of the Continental Congress).

He suggested in a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention) that the position of the Command in Chief not be given to nor devolve on (by succession) any but a natural born citizen.

That was to avoid what was his stated concern; -the inherent foreign influence threat that would spring from that power being given to one with a secret foreign loyalty, -having been born as a foreigner, -or born to a foreigner.

Those two possibilities were apposed to being born of Americans only and having no direct foreign ties, bonds, connections, loyalties, or allegiance.

With that as his stated concern, it becomes an absurdity to embrace either the doctrine of the native-birth-and-nothing-more crowd, or its sister doctrine of native-birth-plus-citizen-parents. Neither addresses his concern because neither exclusively address foreign influence.
Mere domestic birth alone does not work to instill American values and allegiance, nor keep one from being raised indoctrinated with a violent, totalitarian and/ or anti-American ideology, especially if raised in an foreign land with alien values.

That fact has not changed between 1787 and today, but what has changed is the mind-set of American fathers. During and leading up to the Revolution, Americans became very polarized against tyranny and in favor of natural rights, and they knew that American fathers valued liberty, equality and self-governance very highly, and would raise their sons to appreciate the sacrifices made to secure their rights and liberties.

Those ingrained American priorities and values did not vanish from their hearts and minds simply because they needed to spend some amount of time in Europe, or elsewhere, -for college, business, or representation of their country.

They were Americans wherever they went, and the locals all knew it, -knew that they were different, -that they bowed to no king and treated no freeman as their inferior.
Americans whose wives gave birth abroad would never have conceived that they lacked the natural unalienable right to pass their national membership to their sons and daughters, -that under an alien nativist doctrine their children would be labeled ALIENS and not Americans, and would be dependent on the beneficence of some government bureaucrat or rule in order to be viewed as that which they naturally were by birth.

And yet that is exactly what the nativists believe and claim is what the founding fathers accepted and embraced, -with the abrogation of their own natural rights of belonging. Why would sane free people surrender their natural rights to a doctrine of government that would disenfranchise their children based purely on the arbitrary criterion of political borders?
The nativists are forced to assert that Americans born abroad cannot be American citizens except by the permission of the U.S. government. Their natural rights cease to exist past the border’s edge.

Hmmm,.. does their natural duty cease to exist also, or are they required to serve their nation’s self-defense in its hour of need regardless of where they were born?

One’s natural national responsibility does not cease to exist past the nation’s borders but is intrinsic to one’s national membership. But is that national membership a natural thing or a government-given thing determined by birth location? The nativists falsely claim that it is government-given and that without government permission, one is an alien to their own natural country.
They claim that that permission is given in naturalization law which does something that they misinterpret. It states for the record, for the ignorant and misinformed, the natural fact of the citizenship of American children born outside of American sovereign territory.

It states that they are to be recognized as being citizens of the United States (and that is because that is what they naturally are). It protects their natural right to belong, -to belong to the group to which those who created them belong, -their natural group.
That language of declaration and clarification is not remotely connected to language of decree, or mandate, or grant, or assignment, or permission.
It is purely language of protection, -as a government is expected to do for all of the children of its citizens no matter where in the world they are born.

Governments do not make laws to limit or usurp the natural rights of their foreign-born natural citizens but to protect them. But the neo-nativists assert that American natural citizens lose their natural rights as soon as they move past American borders. Then Big Government becomes god over their right to belong to their American parents’ own country.
To illustrate the absurdity of that view, just imagine you are a prospector in the early 1800s. You have migrated far West beyond the borders of the American States and found an area rich in mine-able gold. So you set up camp and establish your living accommodations and begin to dig.
Suddenly beside you appears a U.S. government bureaucrat with his pencil and paper in hand, and announces to you that you have his permission to dig. He will allow it.

Your reaction to the absurdity of his “permission” might be extremely impolite. What right does he have to give you permission that you don’t need and is not his to give?

It’s exactly the same with the natural right of Americans who give birth beyond U.S. borders. The right of the child of natural American citizen parents to be an American also is not a right that Americans ever gave, nor would ever give, to government. But the government has the right and responsibility to protect your “God-given” right to pass your national membership to your children.

If a government bureaucrat appeared where you were mining for gold, his only acceptable role would be nothing other than to proclaim and protect your natural right to dig, (-not to supposedly grant it). That would be a defense of your liberty.

Naturalization acts that state for the record the U.S. citizenship of American children born abroad are a defense of their natural right to be recognized as Americans. They are not statutory exercises of Congressional authority over the natural citizenship of Americans.
That would not only be wrong but would be unconstitutional. That’s because the framers of the Constitution, the founders of the nation, did not give to government any authority over their natural membership in their own country, nor that of their children. They only assigned the new future central government the task of making the 13 separate State rules of naturalization of foreigners uniform across the new nation so the period of required residency was consistent, -and the personal qualifications as well (-all white free men of good character).
So there you have it. Fiction needs to give way to fact. Supposed government permission needs to give way to natural right. Supposed government law needs to give way to natural law. The supposed government-controlled assignment of belonging needs to give way to the right of natural belonging.

The nativist doctrine is in direct violation of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. They proclaim that the rights not given to the government by the Constitution are retained by the People. One of the foremost of those rights is the right to belong to your own people and nation. If that right is usurped or surrendered, then we are not free men and women, -and do not own ourselves and ours. We are just cogs in the machine who must operate by its rules and force. Which one do you think you are?

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com

The Damnable Doctrine of Nativist Citizenship   PDF

addendum:

Both Obots & nativist Birthers face multiple conundrums of conflicting

facts.

FACT 1. By the 1866 Civil Rights Act, those born subject to a foreign

power are not citizens.

FACT 2. U.S. born children of foreign ambassadors and foreign guests are

subject to their father’s foreign government, -just as he is.

FACT 3. Those subject to a foreign government are NOT subject to the

U.S. government.

FACT 4. The U.S. military draft laws of the Civil War exempted those

foreigners subject to a foreign power, whether they were immigrants or

their unnaturalized native-born sons.

FACT 5. The U.S. Government did not recognize dual-citizenship nor

dual allegiance. It was akin to bigamy. One could not be responsible for

the defense of two different nations. That is unnatural and was

unacceptable.

FACT 6. American families were unitarian units with a single nationality;

that of the father.

FACT 7. Wherever an American father’s children were born, their

nationality was inherited from him and was none other than the family

nationality.

FACT 8. No U.S. Ambassador, with children born in multiple countries,

had a family of divided nationalities because they all had his nationality.

FACT 9. No American, with children born in other countries, had a family

of divided nationalities because they were all his nationality from the

perspective of the U.S. Government. See Fact 5.

FACT 10. The nationality laws of foreign nations could not confer a

second allegiance or recognized nationality to one born of an American

father. An American by blood was first and last an American, -unless his

father never lived in the United States and was not born there either.

FACT 11. Every other son of every American father was born with a

birthright that held open every office in America to him.

FACT 12. The unalienable right by the American blood of every American

son was the qualification to one day be eligible to serve as President.

Taken as a whole, these facts can’t be refuted nor disputed. They pop

every imaginary eligibility balloon.

neither soil, nor gravity, nor the planet Earth are an element of life and the new life that it produces. Nothing is a part of natural life that is not living.

Soil is not living and has no effect on life. Membership is not an element of matter nor borders but is an element of life. Natural Law is about Natural Life, not natural matter.

Membership is either natural or artificial. It is artificial if conveyed by government. It is natural if conveyed by blood inheritance as an immutable, unalienable Right of Man.

Why can’t you grasp that the Freeman of a liberated America would never, ever, ever, ever have surrendered their Natural Right of belonging to their families and to their people and to their country and to their nation.

That right was reclaimed from the bastardized British system of national membership, -which based it on subjection to the Crown at birth within sovereign British territory.

Americans threw out both parts of that system. They were Americans by choice, by volition, by allegiance to the revolution and the American principles of liberty and Natural Rights.

They never surrendered to the government they created any right for it to tell them if they were or were not citizens of their own state and nation, NOR whether or not their children were either.
They were members by blood inheritance. No one could take that away from them, including the inconvenience of foreign borders.

They were Americans by nature, not by laws.

Time to smash your Golden Calf of US Soil and stop worshiping it. Life trumps law. Blood trumps borders. Natural born trumps native-born. Just ask the Kuwaitis circa the Iraqi invasion.
Natural membership trumps legal membership based on soil. It’s high, high above it.

When you need government permission to be the father of your own children, then the government’s soil will matter. Not until.

nbc is in and of the same family of phrases as “my natural born child”.
What part of that phrase involves borders?
What part of the natural process of life is dependent on borders?
By what law are you NOT your children’s father because of birthplace?
By what law ARE you your children’s father?
None, -for both questions.
The matter is outside of the realm of government law.
Why? Because you have a natural right to be their father since you are their source and mold.

You do not give up that right merely by crossing borders.
And neither does your unborn child. He or she is born with the right to belong to you and to yours, including your whole greater family and whole greater society. That belonging, that membership at the national level is known as citizenship.

The supremacy of natural law guarantees something of immense value, and that is the absolute right of all Americans to have none of their children disenfranchised of their natural right to be equal to all of their siblings and peers and equally eligible to seek the presidency one day.

If you cross over to the Canadian side of Niagara Falls while your wife is just a couple weeks away from delivery, you do not have to worry that the son or daughter for whom you have great hopes, will be forbidden to ever be allowed to rise above Congressmen or Judge.
You are FREE! because of American values of equality and natural membership.

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–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers