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–


 ~Obama is a stateless, documented immigrant

Barack Obama was never an illegal immigrant in the eyes of the government, nor of reason.  That doesn’t mean that he was never an immigrant, -it just means that his presence in the country was never illegal.  I know, that’s one very unfounded, unprovable, disrespectful, provocative, partisan, delusional and almost slanderous statement.


What do I base such a claim on?  Simple, some elementary facts and lots of logic.
Remember the ending of Indian Jones and the Ark of the Covenant?  The ark ended up crated and stored in a vast warehouse where it might have remained hidden forever.  That is similar to the essential documents of Barry Soetoro Obama’s origin and nationality.

They will never see the light of day.  Not now, not in his presidential library, nor in 50 years.  Perhaps in 100.  If those records still even exist and haven’t been destroyed (destroyed?  -like the Ring of Power was to be destroyed? …but something called for it to not be destroyed, (lust for Power!, but in the case of those records, Money!  They’d be worth a FORTUNE!  suppose… -but I digress).

So if they still exist, they must be the most amazing collection of documents on earth related to our present era considering their significance, -aside from evidence of extraterrestrial alien contact and technology (space ships).

They should have been all collected and either destroyed or stashed in a super-secret vault somewhere.  Either way, one of those documents is or was a permanent-resident Green Card issued by the State Department in about 1971.

Why would an American citizen need a Green Card?  One wouldn’t, but a person would if they could not provide evidence of being a United States citizen.  How would such evidence be obtained in today’s world?
Government has taken to resorting to depending on the use of birth certificates as evidence because they are so convenient for the task, even though definitely not intended for that usage.  That began many, many years ago.

So how would that be a problem for the boy Barack Obama when he was taken by his mother  from their Indonesian home at age 10 to his grandparents’ home in Hawaii?

The problem was that his mother was not able to obtain a birth certificate for him wherever he was born.  If he was born in Hawaii, his mother was unable to return to the Hawaiian Department of Health with evidence to back her affidavit swearing that he was born at home in Hawaii (not in a hospital), but with no non-family witnesses, nor proof that she had been a resident of Hawaii for a full year.

If he was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, as reason argues since, -though she seriously tried, she was unable to find in Hawaii, Seattle, or Vancouver a couple to adopt a child that she did not expect nor want (abortion not being available then) then she left Vancouver so quickly that a birth certificate was never created nor obtained (and may have been impossible if born unattended by any licensed medical professional).

Arriving back in Hawaii (possible in the company of her mother who attended her during her last weeks of pregnancy), then her only hope was to lie and try to secure a Hawaiian birth certificate, which was prevented by the law requiring proof of residency (which would have been impossible if she spent the last few months of pregnancy in Seattle searching for an adoptive Colored, middle-class, middle-aged, childless couple which didn’t exist).

That would have left her with a child who had no birth certificate and thus no evidence of nationality, and who’s father, not being a legal American immigrant, would have left his son unable to qualify for 14th Amendment citizenship because that requires birth to a father who is fully subject to the entirety of American sovereign authority over American citizens.

Since his father was merely a guest of the government, he was not subject to that authority, and so neither was his son through him.

Even worse, no American law has ever covered an alien-fathered child of an American mother who gave birth not outside of the U.S. but inside.
And adding to that is the fact that by law, at that  time she was too young for her citizenship to be inherited by her son if born abroad.

So he fell though the cracks in the cracks as the result of one of the most bizarre combinations of problematic circumstances conceivable.

No American father.  No immigrant father.  A mother too young.  Birth location unknown.  No birth certificate.  And Hawaiian residency unprovable.  He was essentially a stateless person.

In stating these facts, it is presumed that the reader is already aware of the fact that what is purported to be the image of an authentic, original Hawaiian hospital Certificate of Live Birth is purely a computer-crafted fake document that no one outside of Obama’s inner circle of closest confidants and attorneys will ever lay eyes on.
It might have already been destroyed just to be safe.  “I lost it, your honor, I swear.”  Regardless, it will never be examined by anyone, and is protected by the 5th amendment right to not be forced to provide evidence that incriminates oneself in a crime.
Nor will it ever be publicly viewable again after being waved about in the press conference on April 27, 2011 in the briefing room of the White House by the obfuscating attorney and aide who introduced it and told a lying story of how it was supposedly obtained.

That story is demonstrably a lie because they went a step too far and claimed something which on its face is flat-out false.
They claimed it was a printed copy from a scanned original Certificate of Live Birth.  What idiots.  No such scans are ever performed in the digital era, -ever!  Everything that gets printed is printed from a digital file that is already stored in the Dept. data-base.
Those files are from two eras; one is the present one in which scanning of documents is how they are archived and backed up, unlike the previous method which relied on micro-film.  All old micro-film images were digitized but with the deletion or erasure of the imagery of the paper that they were written and typed on.
That left a much, much smaller file to store on expensive hard-drives connected to much, much slower early-generation office computers.  The birth certificate images of text was thus “floating” on an invisible, non-existent background.  That made it possible to over-lay it onto the image of safety paper or to print it on actual safety paper with a pattern that confounded early scanning devices that might be used for counterfeiting.
What is the proof that the result (an Abstract) is what Obama was actually presenting?  It is the fact that no state issues birth certificates that look like the pdf image, which was one of a certificate (fake) imposed on a full sheet of safety paper.  That shows two things; they didn’t even bother to crop the image, and that the image is an abstract of text over-laid on top of a safety paper design, with the paper of the original totally missing.   Where did it go?  It was erased when the micro-film image of the affidavit that his mother wrote-out, (and which was then typed, and “received” but never “Accepted”) was digitized and digitally archived.
Before digitalization and digital erasure were possible, all certified copies of birth certificates were reproductions of the original and labeled as a “True and Correct Copy” -not an abstract.  The image released by the White House was absolutely not a True Copy but was an abstract.

You cannot scan an abstract because it only exists in the cyber-realm.  It does not exist as a real document.  Once it is printed, then it is an Abstract of an original document.  As such, it cannot be certified as being an original reproduction “True Copy” because it is not since it is simply a digital print of an abstraction of an original.
So we have the head of the Department of Health lying by saying she witnessed the copying-(scanning-printing) of an original paper Hawaiian hospital-certified Certificate of Live Birth, and the White House repeating the same lie.  What could be a clearer case of openly deceiving the public and the ignorant and gullible and obsequious press which was unopposed to being deceived if that protected the President?

So you have a young mother with a child having no evidence of nationality, but who marries a man who adopts her son and thereby gives him a nationality, albeit a provisional one that could be lost in adulthood by not living in Indonesia or failing to renew his passport every two years.

So… when Ann Soetoro took her son Soebarkah to Hawaii to surrender guardianship to her parents, he needed some document for entry to the U.S.  What document did he have?  He had what his parents obtained for him, an Indonesian passport.
That passport, and a Visa, gave him entrance to Hawaii.  What happened when that Visa expired?  Well, if he had been an adult, like the millions of other over-staying Visa-entry foreigners, nothing.  But with his grandparents being law-abiding American adults, they would have applied for permanent residence for him, and that would have meant obtaining a Green Card.

As a Green Card foreign-citizen immigrant, he can sympathize with those who are almost like himself;  June 15, 2012 – President Obama Signs Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to

 Allow Some Undocumented Immigrants
 Who Came to the United States as Children
 to Stay in the Country

    “Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be allowed to remain in the country without fear of deportation, and able to work under an executive action the Obama administration announced on Friday.
Administration officials said the president used existing legal authority to make the broad policy change, which could temporarily benefit more than 800,000 young people.

He did not consult with Congress, where Republicans have generally opposed measures to benefit illegal immigrants…

“They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper,” President Obama said in announcing the new policy in the White House Rose Garden on Friday…

~and he is one of them, -An American (of a very unAmerican sort), but not an American “on paper”.
No one argues that Obama is not “an American”, but understand this; there is nothing in American law that declares that a birth certificate from an American hospital is legal proof of citizenship.  Nothing.  With or without a genuine U.S. birth certificate, he cannot be an American citizen due to American Law, -but is one by set federal policy.
I’ve explained why over the spread of dozens of pages so to conclude here, I’ll just emphasize the fact that being the greatest policy-changer in presidential history, Obama could also change the policy regarding the faux-pseudo citizenship of those born of foreign guests since it is not based on the 14th Amendment nor the Supreme Court case that construed its citizenship clause.

It is based on nothing but one individual’s choice in 1898 (Attorney General John Griggs).
Barack Obama and Holder could reverse that policy with their signature on an executive order which would thereby legally and openly render Obama a non-citizen who needs naturalization.  I suspect that neither one of them will ever do that.

by adrien nash  march 2014,  obama–

p.s.  If Barry’s grandparents adopted him, then he could have obtained citizenship through them by legal process, but adoption would have made them liable for all medical expenses, which as merely his guardians, the State would have to pay.

Debunking the BS of Bloviating Windbags



James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

It is an established maxim…”

 -But established by whom?  By Natural Rights-embracing Americans?  Or Royal Rights-embracing Englishmen?

[Before responding further, I should point out the date of that statement. It was written as Madison was serving in the first House of Representatives.

From Wikipedia: “Like most of his contemporaries, Madison changed his political views during his life. During the drafting and ratification of the constitution, he favored a strong national government, though later he grew to favor stronger state governments, before settling between the two extremes late in his life.  As president (1809–17) he led the nation into the War of 1812.

He found the war to be an administrative nightmare, as the United States had neither a strong army nor financial system; as a result, he afterward supported a stronger national government and a strong military, as well as the national bank, which he had long opposed.

Like other Virginia statesmen in the slave society, he was a slaveholder who inherited his plantation known as Montpelier, and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime.”

Clearly, he was a man of conflicted contradictions.  As such, his view of citizenship was one thing while serving his own jus soli state, and quite another when later serving as President of all States.  As President he saw a bigger picture than just that of British common law traditions that continued in Virginia and some other states.

Just consider the example of Barack Obama and his 180 degree reversals of view after being elected President.  Some of his statements as Senator were the diametric opposite of his views and actions as President.  I contend that a similar change happened with Madison’s understanding of citizenship.]

And what does “allegiance” even mean in the new American paradigm in which there is no King or government to which it is owed?  Answer: it is owed instead to the Constitution.

  “Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage,”

 Exactly what “force” does birth have?  Reason would say perhaps that allegiance derives its strength from from birth place or parentage, but “birth” is obviously the wrong word.

      “ but in general, place is the most certain criterion; [for allegiance]

What about the circumstance in which it is not “the most certain” “in general”?  And what does “the most certain criterion” even mean?

Answer: “the most certain to produce allegiance”, one must assume, and yet how could he or anyone else make such an assumption when essentially everybody that everybody knew (98% of the population or more) was born in America and born of Americans.  So how on earth could anyone possibly delineate between the two influences, -assuming birth place even had an influence, -since it would be dependent on being raised in the land where one was born?

If one was not, or if one was born on Mars or the Moon or the Space Station or on an ocean or in Antarctica, -how would place of birth have any influence then?  -Or born on one of the 18,000 islands of Indonesia?  Or born in one land and shortly after removed to another where one grew up?

Clearly, “in general” is neither very exact nor universal in its application.  Nor was place-of-birth a greater force at establishing a bond of devotion and loyalty to a homeland than were the father and mother who taught their children to revere the history of their forefathers and their great struggle and sacrifice, -their great risks and suffering to secure a future nation founded on principles of Liberty and Natural Rights.

How on earth could the most influential people in one’s life be seen as less of an influence than an imaginary attachment to soil?  Answer: only if one had lousy parents.  A mean drunken father and bitter mother…  Only then would “the motherland” or “fatherland” or homeland become a substitute for parental love, support, and a moral compass in life.

Which is preferable; the moral & spiritual values and priorities that you, a parent, instill in your children, -or an undiscriminating devotion to and nationalistic feelings toward their “homeland”?  Which one is on the higher plane?

So…. as for an endorsement of Allegiance… Yes!  But birth-place as the first and foremost influence in one’s life?  Not so much, -rather it is always and only meant to be at best the secondary influence in one’s life and one’s sentiments.  Otherwise you find the behavior of the Imperial Japanese soldiers and Nazi soldiers as an acceptable template since they were both highly devoted to their homeland, -but without a civilized moral compass.

Values must be instilled first, national loyalty comes second, -with obedience third.  Without the first you will have the third lacking any discrimination.  We saw that at My Lai, Vietnam.  Devotion to orders must be tempered by devotion to values, and when values and lawfulness are preeminent, unlawful orders will not be carried out.

The Germans during the Nuremberg trials stated they were simply carrying out orders and so the responsibility was not theirs for what they did.  The free world did not swallow that excuse since everyone is ultimately responsible for their own irresponsible and immoral behavior.  They paid the price for criminally following orders, including hanging.  But they showed a very high degree of allegiance to Adolph Hitler and his orders.  Not so much to German law and constitutional civil and human rights protections.

But what is lacking in that Madison paragraph is any original context.  Was he simply talking about allegiance, or something else?  If he was talking about citizenship, as some seem to assume, then why would he not say so by using that word?  Who ever conflates the word “allegiance” with the word “citizenship”?  Sure, they are related, but most things are related in some way.  That does not give cause to use non-synonymous terms interchangeably.  Bear in mind that one can be a citizen as well as a traitor, -just as one can be loyal and devoted to their adopted country and yet not be a citizen yet.

      “-it is what applies in the United States;”  According to what demographic study?  According to what investigative authoritative work?  According to what compendium of State Constitutions & Laws?  According to what personal knowledge?  According to “British common law”, -or merely the common law of the commonwealth of Virginia?  Would Madison not have had a skewed view by being raised as a Virginian since Virginia allowed jus soli citizenship?

Where are the facts and figures and records and recountings to prove any claim other than that some states allowed jus soli for their immigrant’s native-born children?

If they do exist, why has no one ever referred to them?

It’s easy to say but impossible to prove, -especially when the only land that folks were intimately familiar with was the one where they grew up, -their home State –which leaves out all of the other States with their own Constitutions.

  “it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”  Again, -no context.  Investigate what?  The source of allegiance or the source of citizenship?  No clue.  Research needed.

Understand two things; 1. Allegiance is not citizenship and citizenship is not allegiance.

2. The Madison quote is just an expression of his impression as a Virginian.  His State gave (and no doubt had given before the revolution) colony/ State membership to “sons of the soil” children of immigrants.

No one has yet shown that such citizenship was actually the sole or dominate pattern or law of the United States.  To be that, the majority of citizens would have to have been born to immigrants, -not Americans.

It is asserted, and long has been, that native-birth citizenship was the tradition in America, but where is such a claim about the Constitutions of the original States?  Maybe some day I’ll come across a compendium of State Constitutions’ citizenship clauses.  So far, the ones I’ve investigated only state the conditions that produce citizenship, -not any principles.

The only basis of citizenship that can be “proven” is that in which birth to citizens takes place outside of the national borders.  Only then is place of birth separated from parentage and a blood relationship.  Yet even in that circumstance, the statutes are mum as to the principle of citizenship that is applied.  But they are very, very clear that it is automatic by statute if a blood connection to a citizen parent is incontestable.

But when both parents of a foreign-born child are Americans, citizenship is automatic without the need of any statute because they are citizens by blood, -American by nature, as in political nature.  All the law does is recognize that fact.     ~     ~     ~

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

[Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Volumes 1-2 of A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795) ~]

It was an established maxim of all fully indoctrinated British educated elites of upper-class society that everyone owes a “natural allegiance” to… the government?  Not to The People and the Constitution?

And then he dares to quote the anti-American policy of the royal dictator?  Obedience reaps the reward of protection?  “Entitled to protection”?  And who is their protector?  Aside from local law enforcement officers, they are their own protectors as free citizens shouldering the common responsibility for self-defense.  That is why they possess firearms, -unlike the conquered and dominated subjects of royal dictators.  How clueless can one, or a generation, be?  With that mind-set he was unable to avoid slipping back into the use of the word “subject”  when referring to freemen of America.  One could logically assume that he was the kind of man whose bias was more toward security than it was toward liberty.

“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects,..”.  That says that one type of citizen is comparable to another type of citizen.  He did NOT say that they are one and the same, -otherwise he would have left out “considered as” and just said that they are natural born citizens.  But since they are not, he avoided stating that they are.

“and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”  That is testimony espousing the American doctrine of citizenship equality.  By its legal fiction, all Americans are equal regardless of the origin of their citizenship.  They are all natural citizens, -either by birth or by our doctrine of equality.  Some are natural citizens by legal fiction (those born of or born as naturalized-at-birth aliens, -about three percent) while the rest are born as natural citizens, i.e., natural born citizens.

~     ~     ~

A quote from a non-American monarchist view:  “This claim of the commonwealth to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories, may subject some persons who, adhering to their former (?) sovereign and residing within his dominions [that should read: new sovereign, -not “former” in order to make sense, an error unrecognized for two centuries?], are recognized by him as his subjects, to great inconvenience, especially in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns may claim their allegiance. But the inconvenience cannot alter the law of the land. If they return to the country of their birth, they will be protected as subjects.”           Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813). ~

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . .

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”

James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW Page 258 (1826)

within and under” = within the dominion and under obedience to the King.  All such persons so born are labeled “natural-born subjects” by the author, but without the slightest explanation as to why they were not simply labeled “subjects and not aliens”  I offer an explanation further on.

“I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States,”.  His lack of perception does not validate his presumption.  Ignorance of the truth does not turn misconceptions into reality.

“in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . .”        So…if there is no statute declaring that children do not belong to the State then one can presume that they do?  Natural Law does not need to be stated for those whose minds are not thoroughly indoctrinated with the King’s system of human ownership.  By Natural Law, the parents own their children and pass on to them their membership in all that they are a part of, including their species, race, family, guild and nation.

Allegiance is not synonymous with obedience even though obedience is inseparable from allegiance.  The opposite is not true.  Obedience is separable from allegiance because one can obey out of fear rather than loyalty.  Allegiance is something that only normally attaches to a sovereign, -and it should never be related to a government representing an entire nation and not just the ruler or ruling party.  Its only proper connection is to a monarch, dictator or clan or tribe chief.  It is always personal because it is devotion sworn personally via a solemn oath of obedience, fidelity and devotion to one’s new ruler.  Consider the example of the Knights of The Round Table swearing allegiance to King Arthur.

It’s true that allegiance can be felt toward a group, -like a Sacred Order, such as was the case of the Spartans or The Knights Templar and other special military units, but such examples are the exception, not the rule.  The rule is that allegiance is direct and personal.  That is what the Nazis realized and therefore forced all members of the German military and government machinery to swear an oath of allegiance personally to Adolph Hitler, -not the German nation or Constitution.  They were thereby bound by honor to obedience to all orders (lawful or not).

But the governments of democratic republics are not dictators, kings nor sovereigns.  They are the servants of the The People.  The People are the sovereigns.

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”  Laziness and habit cause our minds to just skip over the “ANDallegiance part of that statement.  But let’s re-order the two requirements with “allegiance” replaced with language that is equivalent, namely; “subject to the national legal & political authority”.

“Natives are all persons born both subject to the national legal & political authority of the United States and within its territory.”

If “and allegiance” is omitted from the original quote, as most are prone to do in their thinking, then the resulting logic is this:  General George Armstrong Custer, during his campaign against the Sioux Nation, is accompanied by his pregnant wife who delivers George Jr. within Sioux territory.  Her son is therefore a native of the Sioux Nation and thus eligible to one day be its Chief.  He is viewed as no different from and as equal to Sioux-born natives regardless of his parentage and upbringing.

Clearly, the “and” addition to the statement is a gigantic AND! of major significance. ~

Warning: Beware of what you are about to read.  It is 100% wrong, even though offered by a respectable authority.  St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a *native-born* citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Well!  That seems to settle the issue and end all debate.  And it might if it were not totally incorrect.  Understand first that it contains no substantiation for its claims.  It’s lame logic assumes that all American children born outside of U.S. boundaries are “aliens” having no right to membership in their own parents’ nation, -as if the foreign government or king owns them and not their parents, -as if they were not born into automatic national membership by Natural Law.  Natural Law?  Whats that?  If you don’t understand something, why acknowledge its existence?

It also means that all U.S. born children of foreign representatives and tourists and illegal entrants and over-stayers are automatically American citizens and not aliens like their parents.  As well as meaning that native-birth is “a happy means of security against foreign influence” even though it absolutely is not.  Where is any mention of those born on U.S. soil but taken back to the parent’s homeland and raised there as loyal subjects of a hostile monarch?

They would be filled with “foreign influence” (likewise if raised in the States by those unwilling to abandon loyalty to their life-long king, -or Wahabiist Islamic fundamentalist dogma).  How is this not all very obvious with just a little bit of contemplation?  Evidently, contemplation was missing before the pen was put to paper.  Impressions alone were relied on, -as they are for most things not of an official legal nature.

Second, understand that the human mind does not focus on minute details and thus makes simple but sweeping assumptions based on observations not of the specific but of the general.

Those assumptions will inherently be prone to error.  Example; what word is this: “minute”?  Does it mean a measure of time?  Or a measure of size?  I just used it above as a measure of size, but we are not programmed to think of that usage first.  That is because of familiarity.  We are far more familiar with its use as a measure of time, and so that is what comes to mind.

The same tendency is behind the Tucker statement.  It adopts the general, -nonspecific assumption and viewpoint about the people one knows but then states the general rule as if it were an all-inclusive universal rule, -which it definitely is not.  That results in incorrect and illogical semi-official statements of rules, truths, facts, conclusions which are then swallowed by students seeking knowledge about a subject.

It seemed that those “born within the State” were all Americans who were born in America, with an occasional immigrant here & there.  The children of the occasional immigrant did not come to mind (partly because children were not thought of like adult males were thought of, -they were more like property, appendages, -especially if one had around a dozen of them, and preferred them to be seen but not heard).

So in one’s everyday view, one sees almost only Americans, -with perhaps some immigrants now and then.  From that perspective it is natural to assume that the Americans are those who were born in America because they all were born in America, -and not even have the thought enter the mind that the reason that they are Americans is because they are the natural issue of Americans.

No consciousness of Natural Law shines a single ray of light into such pedestrian thinking, and thus a very clear and elementary logic error occurs.  The Fallacy of the Consequent.  A good example is that of the rooster who crows before dawn with the assumption that his crowing is what makes the sun rise.  By early morning hours he is ready for a new day and so he brings one about.  Well… one thing does not follow the other even though they are seemingly connected.  It’s the same with native birth.

That logic error would not exist if half of the nation was born somewhere else.  Consider the plight of refugees, such as the Kuwaitis or Palestinians.  They lived in exile for years or decades, and children were born to them.  Were their children aliens to their parents (or the Kuwaiti government in exile) because they were not born on the soil of their previous homeland?

In general, the Lebanese government has never recognized the Palestinian refugee population as Lebanese even though the number of their native-born is in the hundreds of thousands.  60% of Jordan-born refugee children are still not allowed Jordanian citizenship.

Reality dispels superficial conceptions by revealing the underlying principle of membership.  All natural membership is via blood.  That’s the universal law of all species.  No natural principle is involved when the arbitary factor of birth location is involved in group membership.  Only humans are capable of such thinking.  Some animal species live in inherited or acquired territory, but it does not produce any natural connection between them.  Only a blood connection makes one a member of their parents’ group.

Finally, let’s not overlook the most absurd error of all; “the constitution…requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen.”  Quote: U.S. Constitution Article II, Sec. I; “No person except a NATURAL born citizen shall be eligible…”

Either he did not know the accurate wording of the Constitution or he ignorantly assumed that it was perfectly alright to substitute an alternate word under the assumption of it being synonymous.  Well, other than the Bible, there’s no document for which one is more prohibited from substituting alternate words.  Especially ones that are not synonymous.

If the framers of the Constitution had meant to say “native-born” then they would have done so, but they did not because native-birth has nothing to do with natural citizenship, -which is based on the principle of natural membership, -not on a legal policy that happens to be viewed as “traditional” in the minds of some, -even though not natural.  If one can make an error of that magnitude, what error can’t they make?

When seeking to make one’s way through the territory of their proclamations in print, don’t forget to have and activate your Truth-O-Meter or you will end up misdirected and arrive at the wrong destination.               ~    ~    ~

“Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign…” [either by native-birth, or… by inherited subjection]

In other words, it’s all about the sovereign and not much else.  The Divine Right of Kings is all that governs, and the unalienable Rights of Man are not considered.  One’s child belongs to the king if born on his soil, instead of to the king of the foreign parents who are subjects for life.  So the parents are natural subjects of one king but the baby they brought into the world is the property of another?  What principle of Natural Law does that follow?  Answer: None!  It is purely arbitrary and self-serving control of others via royal dictate backed by the force of royal martial power.   Natural membership has nothing to do with such a policy of subjectship.

“That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, [then] it is clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Justice Story, concurring opinion,Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)

So his parentage meant nothing in regard to American citizenship?  Born of subjects of King George but an American citizen in spite of his origins?  “Nothing is better settled at the common law…”  But who’s common law?  That of the sovereign States of the American union or that of his royal majesty?  The later of course.  They were willing to war against his rule but not against his self-serving common law policy or “doctrine” of human ownership by royal right?

So the lapdog mindset of the British-educated jurists was that the policy that benefits and was concocted for the British Crown has to be followed in perpetuity by those who risked all to overthrow him and his unnatural policies and mandates.  Sure, that makes lots of sense.  And speaking of sense, what sense does it make to call him an American citizen if born after the Declaration of Independence when there was no such thing as an American government or nation?  He could not be a citizen of a nation that did not yet exist.  He was a citizen solely of his own sovereign nation-State.

Impressions of reality may turn out to be like mirages; mis-impressions of reality.

To say it was “settled at common law” was totally ambiguous since it failed to mention the minor fact of the American Revolution and the end of the reign of the king’s authority and common law jurisdiction over matters as fundamental as the unalienable rights of all people.  In particular, the right to belong to the group into which one was born by blood and not merely permission.  By common law all Americans were still British and subjects of his majesty and the Church of England.

“~the doctrine that the children even of aliens…”  “Doctrine” is absolutely the correct word.  No one ever made the mistake of using the word “principle” because no principle was involved.  Instead, it was a mandate gilded in a doctrine derived from the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings.  The Americans tossed that doctrine overboard like the tea in Boston harbor.

“…children even of aliens … owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

Not really, -except in the sycophantic devotee minds of British loyalists.  That statement contains two possible errors of ambiguity.  One error was stating that they were subjects by birth rather than merely upon, at, or from birth.  “By birth” they are subjects of their father’s foreign monarch, but secondly, -they were in fact British subjects by Law, and not birth.  The law was that their native place-of-birth made them subjects.

That was by royal dictate and not via natural inheritance.  That dicate was followed as a rule of the common law because it was adopted by the government and judiciary of the king and imposed not just in Britain but also in America.   Clearly it was inculcated into the thinking of most British-educated Americans and became an embedded element of their world view, even though it was passé and rejected as un-American by the founders of the nation.

As founders of a new democratic republic, in their new view of Man & his Natural Rights, children do not belong to the Crown but to their parents and are natural members of their group.  Born into it as new members.  Thus the difference between subjects and citizens was that citizens did not belong to the government but the government belonged to them.  They were its sovereigns, -it was not theirs -except to the degree that they allowed by written statute.  They were members of the American family by the same principle by which one is a member of their own family or clan or tribe or country.

Where exit from the womb occurred was irrelevant.

Those who came after the founders were raised in an old system that was still in place.  A legal system create by and for the benefit of the Crown but which was tempered by human rights secured against the tyrannical arbitrary rule of royal despots.  The Americans were denied the rights that existed in England, and hence the revolution was necessary.  But the overthrow of British rule did not include the overthrow of the ingrained British mind-set.

It continued on unabated.  It continued to flourish because of all of the good that it had brought to the cause of human rights.  The teachers of young Americans were very august, sober, respectable authorities.  When people of such character teach young minds, their indoctrination into the system of which they are a part, -knowing no other, is planted into and grown in the fertile minds of their students.

One does not question the knowledge or wisdom, or correctness of their respectable mentors, -especially when they are very powerful men, -men like Hitler or Lenin or Marx or Mohammed.  No young student questioned the “rightness” of what such unquestionable leaders taught.  It does not follow that what they taught actually was right.  In fact, their teachings were entirely embraced regardless of being entirely wrong.

Just consider the followers of al Qaeda and Jihad against the West.  They are taught by mentors who carry a great deal of authority and respect.  Something would have to be fundamentally wrong with the universe for such men to be wrong, -which is inconceivable.  Thus the indoctrination, the dogma, the divine orders and dictates must be embraced and followed.

Well, I have it on good authority (experience) that there is in fact something fundamentally wrong with the universe, but no one realizes what it is because to do so would require re-wiring their brains, -and most brains aren’t open for that.

Jesus related that evangelizing the new message of the Kingdom of God to minds already firmly indoctrinated with the old would not work, -comparing it to putting new wine into old wine-skins which could not handle the fermentation pressure and would therefore burst.

For most minds, once deep grooves of ideas and priorities are carved into them and hardened, they cannot be remolded.  That was the problem that Moses faced after bringing Hebrews out of Egypt.  They were all Egyptians by culture and thinking and had been so for centuries.  They were not the people of God who were destined to form a new and unique nation and religion based on devotion to a single creator diety who was holy and highly moral.

If they had been allowed to invade and conquer the land of evil-god worshipping pagans in Palestine, then they would have just fashioned for themselves a new Egypt with its pagan gods, theology and rituals.

To avoid that, they were condemned to spend 40 years in the wilderness until the older generations died off.  They could not be fixed.  Set in their ways.  So it was and is with authorities who had been taught by authorites who based their teaching on what they had been taught in a system that the patriots had overthrown.  A major element of that system was the King’s prerogative to claim as his own the children of foreigners simply because they entered the world within his domain.

What does such a system have to do with the natural pattern of life, -with natural membership by blood?  How could anyone with an open, unindoctrinated mind mistake the meaning of the word “natural” for the meaning of the word “native”?  Would George Custer Jr. be not only a “native” of the Sioux nation but also a natural member?  Pulling the cover off of the issue of the origins of citizenship reveals that it is not the simplistic “native-born or alien” dichotomy that it is thoughtlessly portrayed as.        ~     ~     ~

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)

Why is native-birth unaccompanied by any mention of being subject to American authority, -or mention of those who were not, -like Indians, slaves, Gypsies, or American-born children of foreign representatives and tourists?  Instead we get “every person”.

So if Osama bin Laden (or King George III) had a child born in the U.S., and raised it to be a fervent Jihadi (or monarchist), it could one day run for and be elected to the presidency of the United States.  Gee, the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution must have had a black-out when they wrote the words that would allow that.

But in fact, they never wrote any such words because the word “natural” is not interchangeable with the word “native”, and “native-born citizen” is not interchangeable with “natural born citizen” because one follows Natural Law while the other follows the dictate of dictators.

Bear in mind the meaning of the word “pontification”.  It often involves making claims unsupported by anything.  None of the many statements shared here, and many more like them, are accompanied by any form of historical proof.  They are just the echoing of echos of beliefs of men who were once a part of a foreign kingdom, and never got past the programming that it inculcated into their minds.

They were the American Egyptians who dominated the younger generations and indoctrinated them into Egyptian thinking and mythology, i.e., -an unnatural philosophy of citizenship.

That author, William Rawle, was a native-born Virginian, indoctrinated from childhood into the philosophy of jus soli (or soil-based) citizenship totally replacing natural jus sanguinis (or blood-based) citizenship.  Those who wrote the first laws in the colonies that allowed alien immigrants’ children to be accepted as subjects or citizens did not do so with the thought that such an allowance for a tiny minority of their population would one day mistakenly be viewed as overthrowing the eternal natural basis of natural membership.  Their only thought was that it was not a good thing to stigmatize and discriminate against sons of immigrants who emigrated from nations other than England.  The Natural Rights of Man required equality for all men (i.e. all free-men who happened to be white, European, Protestant, and not criminals or hostiles).  ~     ~     ~

“It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born *subject* from being president.”  “Subject”?  In 1835?  Gee, I wonder if someone was programmed into British thinking?            State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335–36 (1835).

“and that no person except a natural born *subject* can be a governor of a State, or President of the United States.”    The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854)!!!

“The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”   Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

Well, that opinion actually involved not thinking but simply assuming instead.  A whole lot of people who had risen to positions of prominence and authority were possessed of a whole lot of presumption which allowed them to confidently pontificate without any substantiation for their view other than the force of British law lingering at the very foundation of our free republic.

But the founders had pulled those noxious weeds out by the roots.  But they didn’t adequately verbalize their foundational Natural Rights philosophy to a degree that could eliminate all confusion and vestiages of the King’s unnatural system.  Hence it continued to flourish.

Note the mention of an existing “standard” definition of “natural born citizen” being found in the common law.  Actually, it did not exist in the common law because CITIZENS did not exist in the common law, and the two terms are fundamentally different in nature and application.  Citizens have responsibilities that subjects do not have since they are responsible for their own governance and national defense, while subjects are dependent on the Crown and obligated to be obedient to whatever lawful orders it might dictate.

Also, the Crown allowed them no right of expatriation.  But it was a fundamental human right in the American system, and no government had a moral right to deny it.  One had an unalienable right to renounce the obedience they were born under and assume a new position in life as a member of a free nation.  No argument of that fact was tolerated in America.

“and no different standard has been adopted since.”  More accurately, no standard has been adopted, -ever!  That is because none needed to be “adopted” since the words mean what their normal English language meaning conveys.

It is a fundamental error to suppose that those three words (natural born citizen) constitute a legal “term of art” that requires reference to some source of origin.  They are not a “term of art” (which itself is a term of art) but are just three normal words like “natural blonde”, or “natural born athlete” which implies one endowed by nature with a natural athletic ability, -as opposed to one who developes athletic prowess by rigorous training.  Did you need a common law dictionary to understand that implication?  Or just an understanding of the English language?

Also, its origin in the Constitution was as a suggestion by John Jay, former president of the Continetal Congress, who admonished General George Washington to allow none but a natural born citizen to occupy the Command in Chief of the United States military.  But he underlined the word “born” implying that it had a special importance.  That fact implies that the three words have individual meaning and not a term-of-art unitarian meaning.  I’ve explain that subject a hundred different ways already and won’t belabor it further.

“Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents,” [that was hypothetical then, and never happened openly in U.S. history until the election of the alien-born B.H. Obama –if you assume he was native-born] “-could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”

Lack of doubt never made anyone’s beliefs valid.  No one doubted that the earth was flat and it was possible to sail off the edge.  A million other similar examples could be given besides.  But to pontificate that no doubt could be reasonable was the height of over-confidence and over-programming in the British manner of thinking.

Understand something about human nature, -a flaw that goes unrecognized.  It is that people like what they say to have a ring of weighty authority, -thereby lending a hand to its acceptance, force, and appearance of validity and certainty.  That is done by the addition of superfluous adjectives or adverbs.  That isn’t a bad thing unless it actually changes the meaning of what is being pontificated.  But when rooster-ing verbal puffery makes a significant but over-looked difference, it is a travesty of communication when that alters the perception of reality, and  results in a falsehood being adopted and perpetuated as being accurate and true.  Such has been what occurred with the use of the word “subject”.

In arguing a case asserting that so-and-so was born as a subject of England and thus was eligible for inheritance rights upon the death of a British relative, then resort to language inflation was a temptation that was not resisted.  Thus the claim that one was simply a subject (though alien-born) devolved to employing the fuller and more weighty label of “natural-born subject”.

That practice continued in America but with the substitution of calling one “a natural-born citizen”  or “natural-born subject” when by being alien-born one was merely a citizen by law or tradition or common law, -with their citizenship having nothing whatsoever to do with natural citizenship.

You will see that puffery and error all over the landscape of American citizenship commentary.  It in fact became a form of “institutionalized error”.  As the term suggests, bureaucracies, systems, and traditions can be infused with unremovable errors.  Like a disk surgically implanted in one’s back, or dental implants in one’s mouth, removal is not an option.  But just because it is present and integrated into the system does not make it natural or correct.

It remains artificial, just as artificial citizenship will always result from citizenship by law for children of aliens who have no natural right to national membership since they are not natural members.  Just ask all the Palestinians born in Lebanon why they are not Lebanese.  It is because they are not Lebanese by blood.  The fact that they are also not Lebanese by law should speak volumes to all about the nature of legal citizenship.

It is not by right but by mercy.  It is not by blood but by borders.  It is not by Life but by Law.  So anytime you read a statement that inflates simple legal citizen(ship) or subject(ship) with the added puffery of “natural born”, you know the words were spoken as pontification and not substantiatable truth.  Their addition is like putting a squash inside a pillow during a pillow fight.  It adds weight and substance, but unfairly.  The squash does not belong, just as “natural born” does not belong when discussing the citizenship of the alien-born.  There is nothing natural about it.  Adding those words is like gold-plating an inexpensive piece of metal jewelry.

“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle…. But the law of France rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural-born citizen or subject of France, absolutely,…”

Horace Binney, American Law Register, 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204, 206, 208 (February 1854).  [quoted in the Wong Kim Ark decision of the Supreme Court in 1898]

That statement is like a minefield of potential errors, -beginning with its first statement.  He made the mistake of adding the puffery of “The right of”.  National membership has its source either as an unalienable right or as a legal gift.  Unalienable rights are not delineated in the law, including the right of national membership in the group to which one’s parents belong, along with others such as the right to belong to them and not to the government, -and their right to own their own child.

Where are those rights in the law?  Nowhere, because rights that are universally incontestable do not need to be codified into written law.  They are the understood foundation of civilization and free republics.

It is true that that natural right of citizenship does not descend in a legal sense, -considering there is no law that declares it to be so.  That’s because governments are not in the business of stating the obvious.  What is universally agreed to need not even be put into writing.  And it wasn’t put into writing for the 98% of Americans born of Americans.  It was “a given”.

He was wrong about citizenship by descent not being legally recognized for children of naturalized foreign fathers.  But the recognition was unrecognizable due to the absence of any elucidation regarding the operating principle behind their recognition of citizenship.

From the beginning, naturalization acts recognized the U.S. citizenship of children of naturalized men.  But Binney, indoctrinated into thinking grounded in the British system and not American principles, assumed that their citizenship was bestowed via the operation of enacted statute making it so.  That was not what was behind their citizenship.  Under American principles they could not have a citizenship different from their father’s because he was the determinant, the source and fountain of their nationality.  Whatever he was, so were they as his issue and reflection.  The naturalization acts merely recognized that natural law reality and stated for the record the resultant fact that they also were U.S. citizens (through him, through his new citizenship, i.e., -by descent.)

“[Citizenship] is incident to birth in the country,”. No, it…is…not!  Unless someone died and made borders God, then it is merely co-incident.  Although almost everyone (percentage wise) who is an American citizen was born in the United States, that does not mean that that fact is anything other than coincidental to the real source of their national membership, which is their unalienable right of belonging to their parents and the nation of which they are members.

If one’s parents were among the 1-3 percent or so who were aliens, then birth in the country is not optional to citizenship.  It is absolutely vital and necessary.  But it is irrelevant if one’s  foreign parents were not subject to the full political authority of the American government by being foreign representatives or foreign guests.  Their native-born children are not covered by the 14th Amendment, although that is unrecognized by the legal establishment, and has been so for well over a century. (a major, gigantic institutionalized error)  Recognize that no institutionalized error is perceived as being an error, -other than the government calling Native Americans “Indians”.

Speaking of which, just imagine the breadth of that error.  Even the Natives themselves use that term because it is totally ingrained in American culture, and has been in use for over 500 years.  But it is totally wrong.  Columbus didn’t know that.  He just did what people always do, and assumed that his assumption was correct, -thereby forever mislabeling them as people of India.  Ingrained errors dominate the national landscape.  We shouldn’t be too surprised since we like simple answers and don’t want to spend the time in researching and contemplating nuanced answers (my readers excepted).   ~     ~     ~

“Allegiance”: It is natural, acquired, or local. Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the United States; acquired allegiance is that which is due by a naturalized citizen. It has never been decided whether a citizen can, by expatriation, divest himself absolutely of that character.    Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

Now think about it.  Why has it never been decided?  Because no one was teaching the principle of Natural Law regarding the origin of citizenship and what was underlying it.  If they were they would be crystal clear that allegiance is one’s to give or not give.  It is a natural right of all individuals.  It is a fundamental principle of American values and has been held high since before the Revolution.  Without it, there would have been no revolution.

Americans do everything they can to divest foreigners of all foreign allegiance via the solemn taking of the Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation.  They thereby start life anew as newly born American citizens owing allegiance to no monarch, potentate, state, or power.

If they happen to meet their former king, they have every reason to not bow to him because they are now his equal.  They are Americans and the Americans recognize no sovereignty superior to their own.  [with one exception; -the revolutionary war cry of “No King but Jesus!”]  The Americans paid reverence to a heavenly kingdom and the spiritual values that were the basis of their lives.  They expressed that honor for Nature and Nature’s God in the Declaration of Independence.  All of the misconceptions over the centuries are not preeminent over the values and principles on which the new nation was founded, but their volume does bury them and make them invisible to those who only see the superficial and assume that it not only is all that matters but is all there is.

by Adrien Nash 2-14.

Unraveling The Rat’s Nest of U.S. Citizenship Confusion


American colonists inherited almost everything from the British, including their monarchical overlords, but there was one thing that was not “British” which was embraced in pre-Revolution America, and adopted as a keystone of the American philosophy of government and civilian civilization, and that was the principles of unalienable Natural Rights.

The founders had read all of the works regarding the Natural Rights of man and those works were not written in support of the monarchy but in opposition to it at the most fundamental level possible since the rights of freemen impinged on the sovereign rights of the otherwise royal dictator.

That’s because the matter was not a question of which of their possible leaders or what kind of leader should have the scepter of power but rather, “what is the only legitimate basis of holding power over one’s fellow man?”

Is the maxim that “might makes right” the legitimate basis of rule?  Is the dogma that God selects the rulers of his kingdom on earth and their blood-line is his divinely appointed choice of who should lead?   Or was it something else, -something involving Free Will and collective choice, -something egalitarian in nature?

The British mind-set, like that of all monarchists, viewed the exercise and structure of power vertically, -as it is in a family.  The youngest child is at the bottom, and the father is at the top.  In British and colonial societies, the slave and indentured servant were at the bottom, and the aristocrats of wealth, power, and nobility were at the top.

As for government, the kings ministers and magistrates and governors were at the top, and far away back in England, the Parliament and the King were co-Lords of all the land. -as well as in the distant colonies.

They were sovereign over all, -with the Imperial chief executive wielding almost uncontestable power.  The motherland considered it uncontestable regarding the colonists because they were viewed as inferior subjects of his majesty, -not unlike tolerated step-children.

That meant that the rights of Englishmen did not extend to them since they were not present within the borders of the nation where the rights of Englishmen had come to be guaranteed by various rebellions against tyrannical royal rule throughout the centuries.

The colonist discovered in the 1770s that they were in a kind of nationality limbo or Twilight Zone when it came to unalienable rights of British subjects.  It was as if they were somewhere between being British aliens and being conquered natives who must submit and comply with the haughty power of the royal sovereign.

That mind-set of superiority over a subject class was inculcated into the minds of the elite and law-educated class in America.  They saw American power as the same sort of vertical structure, with the national government being at the top and being sovereign over the people in the same manner that the king had been sovereign before the revolution.

They were total failures when it came to knowing, understanding, and /or bearing in mind the new fundamental American principles of social equality and self-governance.  They felt that those at the top of the pyramid were the rightful rulers of the People instead of the other way around, -with the People being the Sovereigns over their servants in the government.

With the arrogance of power influencing the mind-set of the elites elected to Congress (Congresses not composed of the former revolutionists, soldiers, and statesmen who put their all on the line for a new form of government and nation) were ignorant of their proper roll as servants of The People and thought of themselves as their lawful overlords to some degree.

They were that, to some degree, -the degree permitted and mentioned in the Constitution.  It granted Congress certain powers over American citizens but what it did not give Congress was power over their citizenship.

Congresses through the ages, in their sovereign arrogance and ignorance of American principles, failed to recognize the difference between citizens (and lawful, constitutional requirements placed on them) and citizenship and its unalienable nature.

Congress was given no authority whatsoever over the citizenship of Americans because Congress was not sovereign.  Rather, those they viewed as being their subjects were in fact their masters under the American egalitarian principles of democracy.

But those principles at many times in American history (or most) were out-of-sight; out-of-mind from the government mind-set, and so Congress saw itself as entitled to pass laws regarding Americans and their national membership (over which the Congress possessed no authority).

What authority did the Congress possess?  Really only one is mentioned among the powers of Congress in the Constitution.  It was authorization to write a nation-wide rule of naturalization.  Some of those in past Congresses of the United States read that as authority over naturalization.  And what is the essence of naturalization?  It is the power to make and regulate the granted citizenship of aliens.

In time, making a gigantic leap into the stupidity of arrogance, they expanded their presumption of their presumed power to include the citizenship of Americans who were born as Americans and not as foreigners.

So then they were not only masters over the citizenship of naturalized citizens but also natural citizens as well.  After all, they were the Congress of the United States, and could pretty much do anything that they felt was best for the nation without consulting that dusty old document stashed in the basement somewhere, namely the United States Constitution.

And what did it say that in effect banned all of their presumed authority?  It said that their power was limited to making a rule of naturalization.  Only it didn’t say that; instead it said “an UNIFORM rule”.

To make a uniform rule meant to take multiple non-uniform rules and replace them with one new rule that covers all jurisdictions that had previously had divergent rules.  What were those jurisdictions?  The sovereign States which had their own individual State laws governing their immigrants and their naturalization into State citizens.

How did the first Congress make those laws uniform?  By writing and passing “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”   (1790).

By it, the number of years of residence before naturalization could be granted was made uniform throughout all of the States, and a requirement added that only free white persons of good character were to be admitted into the fellowship of American citizenship.  That is the entire extent of the exercise of constitutional Congressional power.

First Congress; Session II.  Chap. 4.

“…; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States.”

The Act did not end there because some basic principles needed to be explained to government bureaucrats in the executive and judicial branches of the States and any future United States department dealing with immigrants.

What were those principles?  They were not stated, but the effect of them on citizenship was made plain by clear and unmistakable language delineating the effect of those principles.

To this very day, few comprehend that plain language for what it was because their minds are poisoned by the Royal-Sovereign-Elitist-Statist view of government power over its subjects, -which is in stark contrast to the People’s power over their government and its administration.

Only when fundamental American principles are born in mind when reading what was written, does one comprehend it as it was written and meant.

“And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”

That clause reveals something about the nature of children and their unalienable rights as human beings.  It reveals that they naturally belong to their parents because the government must acknowledge that they belong to the group to which the parents belong, -and not to any old group that the government might capriciously choose to assign them to (its own).

The government has no choice in the matter because the children are of the parents, -not just of their family group but also of their national group; i.e., -the nationality of the parents (the father if living) is also that of their children because they are one and the same in nature and status, -one unit; -a family unit, -the basic building block of all societies.

So what the act did was not to grant citizenship to the children (and wife) of the naturalized father, but instead merely state for the record an official acknowledgement of their automatic citizenship through their  connection to their head (the head of the family).

Their nationality followed his by Natural Law just as all off-spring follow the genus, species, and breed of the parents.  They can’t be anything different.

And in the eyes of the Americans, like the British, international dual-citizenship by blood was rejected just as all allegiance and obedience and subjection to one’s former sovereign master was renounced and rejected in order to become an American via the Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation.

The father then had only one power over him, -that being American Law, and with his wife and children being subject to him, they were also thereby subject to American Law through him and like him.

So they became Americans not via the naturalization transformation like him, but through direct transformation without any oath of allegiance and renunciation.  As his nationality changed, theirs automatically change also since they were all of one nature, one blood, one family, one membership, one unit.

Congress did not make that so via an exercise of constitutional authority.  It was true automatically via Natural Law.  But Congress knew that many people did not understand Natural Law and so it was incumbent upon them to put that fact down in writing.  Which they did, -but only as an explanatory or declaratory statement of fact, not as a presentation of a gift from government.

The gift from government extended to the father only.  Since his family was one blood with him, the gift flowed to them in an unavoidable manner.  They could not be anything other than what he was, -anymore than conjoined twins can have different blood types.  As a unit, a family, they were absolutely inseparable on multiple levels, including the political level.

That is one of the principle foundations of nations and societies.  Indivisible unity.  But Congress added a caveat in recognition of the pre-existing superior authority of the States to refuse citizenship to undesirable aliens:

“Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed [prohibited] by any State, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”

Congress recognized that it was given no authority to over-ride the right of refusal of citizenship that was in the province of the States.   That right was so firm that if the statement meant what it says, then anyone prohibited by any State from citizenship could not be a citizen of the United States even if another State granted that person its citizenship.

Congress added one other thing, -something that had nothing to do with naturalization but did concern citizenship and the perception (or lack thereof) of its possession.  It concerned the executive branch perception of American children born on foreign soil, -but not only a concern regarding their nationality, but the very nature of their national membership.

Was it second-class?  Was it natural or unnatural?  Were American children, like foreigners, foreign because they were born on foreign soil or because they were born to foreigners and not Americans?

Well, American children are not born to foreigners so they cannot be lumped in with them.  That raises the serious question; “By what principle are foreigners foreign?  Is it because of foreign soil and foreign law, or because of foreign blood and culture?”

The answer is determined by the issue of who they belong to and who they are subject to.  Children of Americans belong to their parents who belong to America.  They are subject to America and not a foreign nation’s political authority unless they grow up to adulthood as members of a foreign society.  At that point they might have to choose which citizenship they wish to embrace as their nationality, -that of their parents’ American homeland, or that of their own?

Here’s what the authors added to the act (having nothing to do with naturalization of foreigners) because there was no other act more suitable to add it to:

“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:  Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”

That presents three very important principles, -the third of which, inherited from British law, bars U.S. citizenship to a foreign-born child of a foreign-born father who never lived in America; -the grandson of an expatriate American émigré.  His foreign-born American father never left his foreign homeland and lived in the United States, resulting in the fact that he was never a member of American society, -immersed in its political, cultural, and philosophical environment.  So neither of them were “Americans” and Natural Law no longer applied to them or their situation.

The second principle (revealed by the words; “the right of citizenship”) showed that natural citizenship is by right of descent through the American parents and not by a gift of government based on one’s mother’s location during delivery.  Having been born of Americans meant one was an American by unalienable right, -not due to any gift or acquiescence of government.

The first principle (revealed by the words; “shall be considered as a natural born citizen”) reveals that place of birth is totally irrelevant to natural national membership, -just as in family membership.

All future Congresses failed to comprehend what those words of the founders conveyed.  They thought it was a matter of asserting or granting or declaring the American nationality for all foreign born American children so that they would not be lumped in with the foreign-born children of foreigners and deemed by the executive branch authorities to not be Americans.

But the words of the first Congress were not added to the naturalization act for that reason.  If they had been, then they would have used the wording of all Congressional replacements of the first act ever since.

They replaced “considered as natural born citizens” with “citizens of the United States”. -thereby assuring that they were understood to not be foreigners.

That was not the concern of the first Congress since they were only involved in writing a uniform rule for naturalization, and only foreigners need naturalization, -not blood-born American children.

So their purpose was something else, -and what that was is obvious from the words that they used, namely; “natural born citizen”.  Those words have no connection to anything in America, with one constitutional exception, -that being the ultimate power of the nation over its military forces.  That power, -the Command in Chief, was placed in the hands of the President, and so the nature of his citizenship had to be 100% American in nature.

That means he had to be American, -all American, and only American.  No direct foreign attachment or connection through foreign fathers, -no subjection to a foreign sovereign, no loyalty to a foreign country or government or king.  AMERICAN through-and-through, -with undivided allegiance to only the United States Constitution and the nation it governs.

What Congress was doing was correcting an absence in the Constitution of any elucidation of the nature of the citizenship of foreign-born Americans.  They were not seeking (like later Congresses) to prevent such sons from being viewed as aliens, but to prevent such sons from being denied their American birthright of equal citizenship to that of their native-born brothers and fellows.

Such inequality would be from the ignorant denial of their unalienable right to serve as their country’s leader because of not being recognized as what they in fact were born as by the Natural Law principle of NATURAL MEMBERSHIP, namely fellow natural citizens by birth.

Citizenship was conveyed by BLOOD and only by blood.  Citizenship as a gift of government, even if it’s from birth within the nation, is not a natural conveyance of anything.  It is nothing other than a gift. -not a birthright.

A birthright is not connected to where one was born but to whom one was born, (and in what order and what gender).  The ultimate example is the birthright of the firstborn son of the British royal family.  It was his birthright to one day be king.  It didn’t matter if he was born within the Kingdom or born on Mars.  It was his destiny to be King because it was his birthright via blood conveyance.

So, if or when you read about soil-based birthright citizenship, know that the speaker was ignorant of the facts.  Soil can’t impart anything to anyone, including any unalienable rights of Natural Law that come only from a blood relationship.  That fact will be shown shortly via U.S. Law.

This all seems pretty clear when the facts are presented, but the facts were never presented before, and so confusion resulted from the fact that the actual order of the clauses was different from what I’ve presented.

Congress dealt with the naturalization of foreigners and their children, and then added their protection of the rights of foreign-born American sons to be understood to be natural born citizens.  But then something else came up and needed to be added also, and that was the right of the States to refuse citizenship to undesirables.  So they just tacked it on to what had already been written.

The result of that addition was that the protection for foreign-born sons was no longer an addition at the end of the act, and seen as an addition, but was then incorporated into the middle of the act, -as if it were an exercise of Congressional authority over citizenship, -even though it was no such thing.

The result of its final location between what were Congress’s exercise of authority, made it seem that it was an exercise of authority instead of clarification.

Since the act does both without specifying the nature of what is stated, its nature is open to presumptuous thinking on the part of those ignorant of American values and principles.  Many, if not most, leap to the false conclusion that the all-mighty sovereign Congress has the power to command, not just the behavior of American citizens, but also their very membership in the nation, -when Congress was never given any such authority by those natural citizens who created it to protect natural American citizens and their interests, -not control their natural membership in their own nation.

So the errors in the thinking of the ignorant are multi-fold.  They think that Congress was given authority it was not given, -and which it didn’t claim until after the work of the first Congress was accomplished and it was replaced by statists possibly ignorant of American principles, (which are not stated in any subsequent act).

The errors of thinking that followed resulted in a magnitude of damage to American principles that can hardly be exaggerated.  The errors include: thinking that naturalization (and immigration) were federal matters when in fact they remained State matters.  (The feds had port authority over imports and their taxation, not people.)

Thinking that Congress was sovereign over citizenship and its granting when for 98% of Americans, their nationality was inherited and not via any law at all.

-And thinking that by the change of wording of subsequent acts (dropping “natural born”) Congress was exercising an authority it did not possess and disenfranchising American sons born abroad from presidential eligibility by removing them from a class they were born into and placing them instead into another class devoid of those who were natural citizens, i.e.; the class of people known as outsiders, -foreign, -not natives, -with U.S. soil sovereign over U.S. blood.

Natural citizens by birth constituted 98% of the nation, and probably 98% of them were native-born while “citizens of the United States” constituted 100% of Americans -including the two percent who were naturalized or born of aliens.   But foreign-born Americans were not among that tiny sub-set.  They were a tiny sub-set also, even smaller in size, but a sub-set of the natural Americans group, -NOT the foreign group.

Later Congresses didn’t understand the purpose of the inclusion of reference to children born abroad [acknowledgement of their presidential eligibility] and misconstrued the purpose as being to distinguish them from foreigners, so to do that, a reference to presidential eligibility language was not germane, and thus eliminated.

And thus a rat’s nest of confusion resulted when later Congresses were unaware of the purpose of mentioning American children in a naturalization act meant for foreigners and their children, -that purpose being to properly label foreign-born Americans as natural born citizens and not simply “citizens of the United States” who may, -or may not, be eligible to be President.

Congress was stating for the record that they absolutely must be recognized as that which they were born as, -citizens by blood., -by the principle and authority of Natural Law, and indistinguishable from their native-born brethren.

~     ~     ~     ~

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual

Volume 7 Consular Affairs   7  FAM 1132


7 FAM 1132.3 April 14, 1802

a.)  Section 4 of this Act (2 Stat. 153,155) stated, in part, that: “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States:…”

b.)  This Act’s formula of permitting transmission of citizenship by “persons who now are, or have been citizens” raised a question whether persons who subsequently became citizens by birth or naturalization could transmit citizenship to their children born abroad [in the future]. The right of such persons to transmit was clearly provided in the Act of February 10, 1855.

7 FAM 1132.4 February 10, 1855

a.)  On this date, Congress enacted “An Act to Secure the Right of Citizenship to Children of Citizens of the United States Born Out of the Limits Thereof,” (10 Stat.604).

b.)  It stated, in part, that: “persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States:…”

This exercise in legislative legalese stupidity is a great demonstration of the distorting effect of having a mentality suffused with legal thinking rather than simple clear thinking.

The 1802  Act contained wording that was unnecessary [“heretofore” “or hereafter to be born”] and consequently was noticed by a legal nerd of high repute to possibly imply that other than the circumstances stated, citizenship would not be conveyed to foreign-born American children.

It’s words that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens” was trumpeted to imply that those “who shall be” in the future were excluded from citizenship by an over-sight omission in the wording.  But even a child can comprehend that the absence of the preceding word “ONLY” implied that there was no such implication in the wording at all.

But muddy-thinking Congressmen thought they needed to listen to that legal scholar’s “sage advice” and “fix” the error that caused children born after its passage to be possibly born as aliens and not Americans.  Yet none of them could manage to find the crucial and necessary word “ONLY” anywhere in the 1802 Act.

That showed that the inclusion of the verbiage “who now are, or have been” (past and present only) was completely superfluous to the Act.  All it had to say was what it meant to say (instead of injecting legalese into it) as in this wording:

“the children born of citizens of the United States, are, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, citizens of the United States:…”

That would have avoided the presumptuous imaginary episode and the “correction” of the 1855 Act.

[-that reminds me of my discovery not long ago that a word I thought I knew most of my life didn’t even exist; namely e-phi-sode.  I tried to learn its spelling while writing something and couldn’t find it anywhere.  Strange, -very strange, …until I discovered that I had pronounced it wrong forever.

It was spelled and pronounced instead as e-pi-sode!  Was I shocked.  You think you know something, you have no reason at all to question what you “know” and yet what you “know” is wrong.

So it is with leaders, Congressmen, Presidents, and judges.  Some erroneous concepts are not accompanied by any counter-voices of correction, so it is automatically assumed that the concepts are correct, even when they are not.  That in a capsule, has been the history of the advance of science throughout the ages.]

The “correction” in the 1855 Act didn’t need: “shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States:…”

All it needed was one word: “are”, but over-complicated minds can’t settle on the clear and simple because they teach you the opposite in law school.

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual

Volume 7 Consular Affairs  7 FAM 1130


7 FAM 1131.2

Prerequisites for Transmitting U.S. Citizenship:

Since 1790, there have been two prerequisites for transmitting U.S. citizenship to children born abroad:

(1)  At least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born. The only exception is for a posthumous child.

(2)  The U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.

[Note the use of the word: “transmitting”, -and recognize what it does not mean; namely: “granting” -as in granting by permission of government as opposed to conveying by natural inheritance.]

7 FAM 1131.4 Blood Relationship Essential

1 Establishing Blood Relationship


The laws on acquisition of U.S. citizenship through a parent have always contemplated the existence of a blood relationship between the child and the parent(s) through whom citizenship is claimed. It is not enough that the child is presumed to be the issue of the parents’ marriage by the laws of the jurisdiction where the child was born.

Absent a blood relationship between the child and the parent on whose citizenship the child’s own claim is based, U.S. citizenship is not acquired. The burden of proving a claim to U.S. citizenship, including blood relationship and legal relationship, where applicable, is on the person making such claim.


Applicants must meet different standards of proof of blood relationship depending on the circumstances of their birth:

2.  Section 309(a) INA (8 U.S.C. 1409(a)), as amended on November 14,1986, specifies that the blood relationship of a child born out of wedlock to a U.S. citizen father must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

7 FAM 1131.5-4 Maternity Issues

…“fraud by adoption” —

…a false claim to citizenship filed on behalf of a child by the alleged biological parents, who, in fact, share no blood relationship with the child and, therefore, could not confer citizenship on the child.

7 FAM 1131.6 Nature of Citizenship Acquired by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parents

1. Status Generally:

Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute generally have the same rights and are subject to the same obligations as citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. One exception is that they may be subject to citizenship retention requirements.

[NOTE: The phrase “Persons born abroad who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by statute…” is being very, very specific, -and likewise regarding the statement that follows it.  Understand this: Natural citizens do not “acquire” citizenship at birth.  They are born as organic citizens by nature, -the nature of their American parents whose blood relationship transmits their political nature to them.  The difference is that they do not “acquire” their citizenship “by statute” but by inheritance.

Similarly, “citizens born in the United States who acquire citizenship pursuant to the 14th Amendment” also acquire their citizenship by statute; namely, the authority of the amendment.  It gives the gift of citizenship to native-born children of immigrant aliens.

It is a gigantic mistake to presume that all citizens born in the United States depend on the amendment for their citizenship when it was they, the natural citizens of America, who wrote the 14th Amendment,  -not for themselves (natural citizens) but for freed slaves, with the high court extending it to alien-born children also.

7 FAM 1131.6 - 2 Eligibility for Presidency

a.  It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency. ~

[-but it is determined by facts and Natural Law, -regardless of the distorted thinking of judges steeped in legalese and misconceptions about citizenship.]

FAM 1131.7 Citizenship Retention Requirements

a.  Persons who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad were not required to take any affirmative action to keep their citizenship until May 24, 1934, when a new law imposed retention requirements on persons born abroad on or after that date to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent.


Retention requirements continued in effect until October 10, 1978, when section 301(b) INA was repealed.

c.  Persons born abroad on or after October 10, 1952, are not subject to any conditions beyond those that apply to all citizens.  [no more unAmerican discrimination toward the foreign born.  Note the use of the word “Persons” rather than “Americans and aliens”, -as if parentage and its blood relationship didn’t exist?  Not likely since Persons is used in reference to the foreign-born who “aquire” citizenship by statute.]

As I’ve explained in previous expositions, all citizens are equal under American principles of egalitarian democracy, -all being NATURAL CITIZENS, -either naturally or by the American legal fiction of natural-ization.

Regardless of how one came by their U.S. citizenship, all are on the same plane and are considered to be of the same nature, -equal in all regards, -with that one small, lone, singularly unique exception, -the all-powerful position of Command in Chief of all United States offensive and defensive forces.  He must be more than anyone considered to be “a natural citizen”.  He must have been born as one, -as the Constitution requires.

That does not mean anyone born with citizenship bestowed by the mercy of the 14th Amendment.  That form of citizenship (native-birth dependent) is not natural in reality (even though the legal fiction makes all citizens the same) because it is citizenship given as a gift and not inherited as an unalienable birthright of all children of citizens.

Children of aliens are not born with that birthright because the birthright they are born with is membership in their foreign father’s nation, -not ours.

Instead, their American citizenship is a gift of the natural citizens of the nation who voted to pass the 14th Amendment, although they had no idea that it would one day be interpreted the way it came to be by the U.S. Supreme Court 30 years later.

Until that happened, native-born children of immigrants were considered to be State citizens in only some States but not most, -and weren’t viewed as U.S. citizens by the policy of the U.S. Government “for constitutional purposes”, -i.e., presidential eligibility.

Needless to say, the nation was of two minds.  Some backed soil-based citizenship while others backed only blood-based citizenship, and still others backed both, -which is now the case.

Ninety seven percent or so of Americans are citizens by blood, while the remainder are citizens by naturalization or the 14th Amendment.  As a nation of blood-based citizenship, it’s pure foolishness that dependence on soil-based citizenship has become the dominant misconception, -having skewered the national perception of reality into one in which the tail wags the dog, -the exception to the rule being misperceived as being the rule.

The lack of an understanding of principles results in no answer to the question: “if your American mother gave birth to you on or over a hypothetical border between the U.S. and North Korea, what would your natural nationality be if your father was also American?”

The laws of neither nation would be relevant to their governments.  Only Natural Law would prevail, -as it does the world over as International Law.  And it’s based on blood.

by Adrien Nash Feb. 2014  http://obama–


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers