The Asinine Errors of Maskell’s & Mario’s N-B-Citizen Bullsh*t

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…

“Congressional Research Service Attorney, Jack Maskell, argues in his, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”, dated November 14, 2011, [accessed here] that any born citizen, regardless of where born, to whom born, and by which law so made, is a “natural born citizen”.  He arrives at his thesis by manipulating, distorting, omitting, and misstating historical and legal evidence. The absurdity of Maskell’s thesis can be readily seen by the following.

Maskell’s theory does not explain or provide any evidence on how the Founders, Framers, and ratifiers defined a born citizen. Rather, his is one that is based on what the definition of a natural born citizen ought to be today.”

Maskell wrote: “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates…”

He went wrong right from the start by appealing to “authority” for a factual matter and not an opinion matter.  “The weight” refers to exactly how much weight?  55%? 65%?  The Supreme Court itself, as often as not it seems, has its weight on the side of that which is totally unconstitutional, as we all saw with the court opinion on the unAffordable Care Act, (and Wichard v Filburn).

Throughout its history, the weight of opinion in the realm of science  has always been on the wrong side of reality and truth, as consensus opinion was eventually destroyed by newly discovered facts.  Atheists depend on that phenomenon since it gave them “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, as well as a sun-centered solar system.

I’ve just read an amazing report about the 94 yr. old  Dr. James Lovelock, a guru of the Green Movement, and author of a powerful global warming scare book that polarized everyone into action. Billions will die!  Well, he recants it all now, relating that everyone was WRONG! That data and absence of change destroys what has become a religion.

Opinions can all be wrong, just like the view of two centuries that Black Americans who claimed that Thomas Jefferson was their ancestor were simply promoting not truth but foolishness and lying self-invented myth.  And yet opinions were all that Maskell consulted. He did not consult the meaning of the words themselves or else he would have recognized that any opinion that failed to recognize the meaning of the word “natural” was inherently wrong.

So what was his goal from the beginning and was it the correct goal?  It was not, because it was merely to ascertain what the historical consensus opinion had been, -and finding that there was none, he simply declared both competing views to be correct.

He continued:  “that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth‘” thus rendering the crucial word “natural” meaningless.  Even worse if possible, he bastardized the three word term by placing quotation marks around the two adjectives.  They have no business having quotation marks around them, (“natural born”).  Why would he do such a thing?  Those quotation marks appear in nothing ever written until he dishonestly added them in an attempt to alter the character of the meaning of the three words in combination; Citizen, Born, Natural.  Citizen-born means born of citizens.  It has a hyphen between the two words to indicate a unitary term.  “Natural born” never has a hyphen because it is not a unitary term nor an adjective phrase when used in conjunction with the word “citizen”.

That fact is evident in the letter that the president of the Continental Congress, John Jay, wrote to the president of the Constitutional convention, George Washington, exhorting him to not allow anyone to wield the power of the Command in Chief position except a natural born citizen.  [his underlining]

That shows that they were used as two unrelated adjectives, and not as a adjective phrase attached to “citizen”.  That means that “natural” attaches to “citizen” (natural citizen) and not to “born”.  The difference is seen in an example like “natural-born athlete.  It requires the use of the hyphen and precludes the underlining of either adjective.

He also lazily and deceptively employed a word that has no defined meaning; the word “entitled”, which raises the question; entitled by what? By Natural RIGHT? or by human tradition? or common law? or statutory law? or constitutional law? or what exactly?  What is the source of his claimed entitlement?

He did not address that issue because his entire exploration was a mile wide but only an inch deep.

It was superficial, -shallow, -involving zero principles that determine the boundaries of human life and membership within civilization.

Emmerich de Vattel, in his influential work “The Law of Nations” (1758) addressed the entitlement he referred to, and it was birth to a father who was a member of a nation. Mario’s listed on his blog on April 7th a whole slew of historical statements that all supported that entitlement of every American father; -membership via blood inheritance, -one  which does not stop at the water’s edge.

Maskell wrote: “…entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’”

So… by that logic, Frankenstein is “a human being” either “by birth” or “by creation”. Let’s see… “by creation”, (just like “at birth”) implies something is produced, effected, -something which (without intervention) would not naturally come to be.  “At” is a reference to the time of commencement of citizenship, a factor that could easily be delayed for a year or a decade depending on the will of lawmakers.  Whereas “by birth” refers to the origin of national membership, it being the blood of the citizen parents whose life produced the birth.

So in Maskell’s Bizarro World that which would be naturally produced, “by birth” is equated as being indistinguishable from that which is the result of human designation and action of law. So Frankenstein is just another human being.  His origin is of no consequence in characterizing his nature.  He’s basically no different from everyone else.

-So in “The Terminator” future, humans produced by humans and machines produced by machines are essentially identical in nature. What’s the difference? They exist “by birth” or by creation. They both have a discreet beginnings of “life”.  Hard to see a difference, right?  They are both sentient beings “at birth” or “at creation” so they can be logically equated as indistinguishable based on having something in common.  ~ASININE!

“either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; [or] by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents;”

So you have two completely unrelated circumstances; the alien-born in America given citizenship by the rule of law, and the American-born born anywhere in the world as Americans by nature, and, like dogs and cats, they are of the same species of citizenship???  ~ASININE!

Correlation does not equal Causation. His logic was so absent that he failed to notice that natural citizens are citizens by inheritance, -not native-birth, but he avoids that fact, lumping them in with those for whom native-birth is absolutely essential, -the alien born.  Without it they are not Americans, but the American-born are American citizens regardless of where they are born, -a whole different creature.

He failed to explain why and how the term; “born citizen” was not actually the correct label to describe the common link that he was referencing in connecting dissimilar citizens.
Everything he wrote applied simply to “born citizen”, so his implication is that the founders added the word “natural” for no discernible reason. After all, it was only The CONSTITUTION!!  -And only written for all the ages to come!
But hey, why avoid throwing in an occasional superfluous word here and there? After all, no one would ever come to a dispute about the difference between a “born citizen” and “a natural born citizen”, would they?
Hamilton’s suggestion that no one “but one born a citizen” must be considered to have been adopted, -only with a slight, inexplicable, unnecessary, irrelevant linguistic embellishment; -the word “natural”.  ~ASININE!

Mario wrote: “Here is Maskell’s argument which shows that I am correct in maintaining that he is arguing that all born citizens are natural born citizens“.

Maskell is implying that it is his opinion that several authoritative others held the opinion that the word “natural” adds no meaning to the words “born citizen”.

You can’t say that he is arguing that one is definitely the same as the other when he is essentially only saying that it appears by historical opinion, that people were of two opinions, and the truth need not be ascertained because we can all just have a hand-holding Kumbaya consensus by simply accepting and embracing both diametrically opposed opinions (!!!).  ~ASININE!

Why the heck bother to determine which opinion was correct? That takes too much time and thinking. The low road, the short cut, is far preferable when one can be doing something else requiring payment of prevailing Attorney’s fees.

“or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”

So his short-cut understanding of citizenship takes the position that natural citizenship is legal citizenship and legal citizenship is natural citizenship.  So… one’s legal children (adopted) are really no different from one’s natural children?  ~ASININE!

Get this straight; nothing that exists by Nature (like natural membership) is a legal thing, and nothing that is a legal thing is a natural thing. Two different universes!

Natural membership is from the same realm as the power of juries to nullify laws, -the power of judges to hold people in contempt and strip them of their freedom without trial. The power to throw out a jury verdict and render a verdict direct from the bench.  Where the heck is that found in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?  No where.  Why not?

It’s a matter of sovereignty. It rests with the People and with their judges. Neither of those two sovereign authorities can be questioned by anyone (other than a superior court administratively ruling on a lower court’s action, -something avoided if at all possible).

Such natural authority, like natural membership, is antecedent to government authority, like the right to natural resources appropriated by the first souls to populate a new land. Their rights precede the rule of later laws and are superior to them.
So is the RIGHT of all American parents to pass their national membership to their children. Government does not make their children Americans. Natural inheritance does. Government has no say in the matter of the membership of those who created it, nor their progeny.

Mario continued:  Apart from all his intellectually dishonest tactics, Maskell does not explain by what means or mechanism(s) the Founders, Framers, and ratifiers saw a person become a born citizen.

Mario does an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in Maskell’s asinine logic, but unfortunately, he is guilty of his own asinine logic.

Exhibit #1. Aliens give birth to aliens or citizens-by-law. Natural born citizens give birth to natural born citizens. Aliens do not give birth to natural born citizens and natural born citizens do not give birth to aliens.

But in the church of Mario, natural born citizens DO give birth to aliens!
If the son of a President who was the son of a President who was the son of a President was born on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls he would be an alien in need of naturalization even though he was born with ancestors who were all natural born citizens going back ten generations and more.

In the Apuzzonian dogma such a son has no natural right to be recognized as being an American and is dependent on the benevolence of government in order to be allowed to be a naturalized U.S. citizen.

He is thus barred forever from his unalienable birthright to serve as leader of his country like his ancestors.

That is what Mario believes and teaches and he justifies it not by Natural Law but by the invented legal fiction he calls “American common law”.  ~ASININE!

In colonial and post-colonial America, the common law remained what it had always been; English. But by claiming that the common law of nations was what America switched to, he then redefines that non-existing world-wide rule of citizenship/subjectship to be something that no “authority” on earth had ever claimed or endorsed.

But regardless, citizenship that is natural is NOT defined by citizenship which is legal, -with his definition of “American common law” based not on a natural principle but on human criteria defined by him, namely; citizen parents and native birth.  By American law, children of foreigners can’t automatically be Americans without native-birth, but by Mario’s law the children of AMERICANS cannot be Americans either without native-birth.  SAYS WHO???  Says Mario.  ~ASININE!

So, do natural born citizens give birth to aliens by Natural Law? or by human dogma?  Mario does not have an answer.

How can a child be something innately different than the parents that produced the child?  Mario does not have an answer.

How can foreigners and their children visiting the U.S. (even born here) be naturally still subject to their own foreign nation and yet American babies born abroad are NOT naturally subject to the U.S. government and under its umbrella? Mario does not have an answer.  If they are naturally subject then they are by definition natural citizens of the U.S. and not aliens.

By what constitutional authority can the U.S. government block citizenship from American children if their parents are natural born citizens?  Mario does not have an answer.

How does the issue of naturalization apply to anything other than aliens and their children, and NOT Americans and theirs?  Mario does not have an answer.

By what mechanism does the political nature with which one is born get determined by an incidental, momentary, transient factor such as geographical location at birth and man-made borders?  Mario does not have an answer.

By what crystal-clear logic could John Jay underline the word “born” if together the three words constitute a “term of legal artifice” which must be taken as a unitary phrase with the individual words being inconsequential as individual words?   Mario does not have an answer.

Can the mechanism by which a human is human and a “Terminator” is non-human be combined into a new natural mechanism?

The English eventually pretended to do just that by calling the England-born children of aliens with the same label as applied to the natural subjects born of Englishmen, -calling them both “natural born subjects”.  What did the two groups have in common?  The same king and the same rights, so all differences were ignored, verbally and legally that is, but not when it came to offices crucial to national survival.  Then the hair was split and only true natural subjects, -the sons of Englishmen and not foreigners, were allowed to wield command and be trusted with national security secrets.

Where and when and why did the founders of our nation decide to hold ransom to geography the non-U.S. born children of American Ambassadors and all U.S. citizens and military personnel located or visiting abroad?   Mario does not have an answer.

If instead, the children of U.S. Ambassadors were deemed to be Americans but the children of their equal fellow citizens were deemed to be aliens, how could the founding fathers reconcile such an obvious unequal treatment with fundamental American principles of equality?
So…, by serving one’s country at the request of the President, one’s foreign-born child’s right to be an American and  also be President one day would be decapitated?  ~ASININE!
If not, then children of Ambassadors would have to be assigned to a special class, -a superior class, an aristocratic class, one which was totally banned in America.

What kind of morons would establish and validate such an insane system?  Our Founding Fathers?  Yes, according to the legend in his own mind; Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Well, you’re supposed to just take it on faith, unquestioning faith in the gospel of Nativist citizenship as preached by the august scholar so widely known and considered infallible; the honorable Sir-Dr.-Professor Esquire Don Mario Apuzzo himself, of course. [Sarcasm intended, -and earned.]

~“now, now little ones, don’t do all of your own thinking for yourselves… that would be silly. Here, let me do part of your thinking for you. That would be so much better. You can trust me to not mislead you, honest, I really really know what I’m talking about. At least I’m convinced that I do.

   ~ Only Nature’s jus sanguinis principle of natural inheritance and natural membership produces natural citizens who are bound together by natural bonds of common origin (the blood of citizen parents) and natural national membership, with government having no hand in their membership in their own country.

But the mindless souls that totally embrace the gospel of absolutely necessary native-birth will never, ever acknowledge any truth that invalidates their faith, -no matter how clear, -how factual, -how logical, -or how incontestable.  They are True Believers.  Faithful to the end.

And how does their devotion to native-birth help to de-legitimize the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama?  It does not help one damn bit.  In fact, it obstructs and obfuscates the spread of the truth by spreading a false “truth” in its place, just like a false doctrine of faith, -a heresy that deserves all of the condemnation that can be heaped upon it.

by Adrien Nash  April 2014,  obama–nation.com

 

The Damnable Doctrine of Nativist Citizenship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com

The Damnable Doctrine of Nativist Citizenship   PDF

addendum:

Both Obots & nativist Birthers face multiple conundrums of conflicting

facts.

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

power are not citizens.

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

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

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

U.S. government.

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

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

their unnaturalized native-born sons.

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

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

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

unacceptable.

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

that of the father.

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

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

nationality.

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

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

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

of divided nationalities because they were all his nationality from the

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

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

second allegiance or recognized nationality to one born of an American

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

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

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

birthright that held open every office in America to him.

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

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

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

every imaginary eligibility balloon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They were Americans by nature, not by laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bastard Presidency of Barack Obama

Natural Citizenship vs Legal Citizenship  PDF

~ (the black man analogy)

Foreign-born Presidents & the Native-birth Heresy

Are American children born on non-American soil even Americans by any natural criteria?  Could they simply and completely be nothing more than aliens?
If twins were born on opposite sides of the Canadian border, would they naturally be members of two different nations or would one merely have dual-citizenship by law while the other didn’t?  Would they not both be natural members of their parents’ country, the USA?
These kinds of questions have been falsely answered in the minds of some, and the result of the doctrine they’ve embraced makes the answers totally unacceptable since they embrace worst-case scenarios.  In the case of twins, the one born in Canada would be considered an alien and not an American regardless of being born of Americans and naturally inheriting their political character, (i.e., nationality).
The dogma that labels such American children as foreigners is something resulting from the unholy combination of Natural Law with the King’s law.  It is an element of a miscontruence of the meaning of the constitutional label that must describe who can be President.  That label is “a natural born citizen”.
A misconception has taken hold in the minds of those who’ve embraced the neo-nativist, nationalist doctrine that seeks to explain  what that label means.  The side-effect of that blind belief is that such a citizen is superior to other citizens by having solely American roots, -thus being free of any allegiance to any other nation. Only some put it in the courser term of “higher allegiance”, -measuring allegiance in degrees by some magical measuring stick, and even more magical, measuring it in babies, newborns.
Needless to say, babies have nothing whatsoever to do with any such concept.  All they are devoted to are the urges for food, water, stimulation, sleep, and love.
Such a view thinks of natural born citizens as special when in fact they are the most ordinary citizens of all, since they are merely the children of citizens.  -No exotic foreign parents from far-away exotic lands.  Just ordinary Americans born of Americans.  That, in many eras in American history, was just about everyone.  It’s absurd to be considered special when you are so normal.
-But I digress.
The heart of the resurrected dogma is the belief that the United States, like a dog returning to its vomit, somehow re-embraced the totalitarian doctrine of royal dictators (jus soli).  Under that doctrine, “anyone born on my land belongs to me  (the King) for life.  Even if your parents were only on my land for a day or so, you are mine anyway, -my subject by birth, -meaning not by birth to my subjects but by birth in my domain.
-In other words, its all about me, and not about the nation.  Even if your parents are members of another nation and not mine, you belong to me regardless because I am England!  The nation, the country, its traditions and law aren’t all that’s relevant since I’m in the equation, and that being the case, you belong to me even though you do not belong to my country.  Your parents are not a part of it, never were, and you inherited no membership in it from them, -making you an outsider like them, -but my outsider, my alien-born subject.”

That is soil-based, borders-determined nationality.  The American revolutionaries cast down that system along with the king who promulgated it in his colonies.  The British system of royal human ownership as a mandate of the king and his government ended on July 4th, 1776.  But it was very deeply ingrained in the American psyche since that was what everyone was under for a century and a half, -just as they were under British rule and British governors.
But that past was swept away by the revolution, and the children of the natives of the colonies were members of their society from then on based on having been the progeny of members, born as members by being born of members, -members by inheritance of the membership of their parents,  -born into membership as the next generation of natural members of the society and country of their father and mother.
But the revived nativist doctrine resurrected an old delusion that sought to reconcile two competing theories of national belonging; -the King’s way, -and the natural way.  British common law and pure natural law.  States were divided as to which was “the law of the land” and as a consequence, there was no law of the land other than the law of the independent individual nations of the union.

Some States embraced the King’s way so some genius came up with some sort of a compromise when it came to who was and was not eligible to be President.  He simply combined the two and thereby imposed in his doctrine the requirement that both apply.  -That the President not only be a natural American citizen but also a native-born American citizen.  Is that what the founders had in mind when they penned, included, but never articulated the meaning of “natural born citizen”?

What could be wrong with that combo since it was aimed at protecting American security with a strong avoidance of foreign influence? Well, plenty could be wrong with it and it could be described by the one word “myopic”.

While the self-appointed definers of the term strongly embraced the natural way, they also strongly embraced the over-thrown system as well, and combined the two as dual requirements in order to be a natural member of the American nation.
In order to achieve that in a rational manner would have required that the framers of the Constitution had required explicitly that the President be no one except a “native-born natural citizen”, -and yet they rejected or never even considered the requirement of such a label.
But by combining the two avenues of national membership, the side-effect is to make every American child not born within the claimed sovereignty of the U.S. a foreigner, -even if they were the child of a President who was a child of a President with roots going back to before the revolution.
I don’t know about you, but that seems a little bit extreme, don’t you think?  What kind of god-awful side-effect is that, and why would anyone think it’s acceptable?  Or legitimate?  After all, how stupid would our founding fathers have had to have been to institute such a doctrine of national belonging?
Since “natural born citizens” are in fact nearly the totality of all American citizens, -proportion-wise, it is pretty lame to argue that they were some other different special class when almost everyone was a member of that class.
Nevertheless, they cling to their nativist doctrine because it sounds so warm and fuzzy that Presidents must not only be American-born but must also be America born.  Born in the USA!  Hallelujah!  But that “requirement” is nothing but the British pig with lipstick on it.  It is a mandatory criterion of national membership based on artificial human borders which have nothing whatsoever to do with national belonging that is natural.
One either belongs to their parent’s country because they belong to their parents, or they belong to government and whatever it ascribes as the criteria of national membership, -including birth location.
If government is considered to possess the authority to determine the parameters of national membership across the board, -with natural inheritance not a natural right, then government is god.

If government is perceived to hold the authority to reject its own children based purely on the arbitrary criterion of  birth within its own artificial boundaries, then it owns you and your children because it can dictate who it will accept and reject instead of natural bonds and natural inheritance determining who and what you belong to.
We’ve all grown up brainwashed by the belief that we were very fortunate to have been born in America, -but off to the side was the real truth that we were very fortunate to have been born of American parents, -who happened to be living in America, -although millions do not, -including a brother and a cousin and a nephew of mine.

The children American parents give birth to within or outside of America’s borders, are American by a fundamental law of nature.  Children can’t naturally be something different from their parents since they inherit their nature, and character, including their political character.
Every nation on Earth recognizes that natural fact, -including atheist regimes, (even if they allow citizenship for all children born within their borders) and that is because the primacy of blood connections trumps all other alternative criteria, including birth place.
If you have a natal blood connection to members of a country, then you are legally included as a member by birth.  If that connection is a dual connection through both parents, then you don’t even need the permission of government to be a member of your parents’ country.  You are automatically a member.
Domestic birth is not required.  You are a natural citizen of your parents’ nation because of your natural blood connection via the transmission of life and nature, -life and name, -life and status, life and national membership.
But if only one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, then you do need permission because you are a half-outsider and have no natural right.
In free societies, -as well as in some that aren’t so free, like Cuba, jus soli membership (by right of soil) is not an opposing system to jus sanguinis (by right of blood) but rather is an adjunct system to provide legal membership to native-born children of outsiders who have adopted a nation other than their homeland to live in and be a part of.
Without the allowance of law for such immigrant-born children, they would be stigmatized as alien outsiders without the rights of natural members of the nation, -second class inhabitants who are not even citizens but merely legal denizens at best.
Governments don’t see that as an acceptable situation, nor did the Supreme Court of the United States in 1898 when it declared by a split vote that the words of the 14th Amendment mean that such alien-fathered children are American citizens.  By that opinion of the court, jus soli was made official as a national policy for all legal immigrant-born children.
That decision impacted perhaps less than 2% of the population.  It didn’t affect immigrant naturalized citizens, nor children born to them since they were born of Americans.  It only affected native-born children born of immigrants who were not Americans.  So for a small slice of the population, it was a very good thing.  But it becomes a very bad thing when it is falsely perceived of as being the established policy of national membership for the other 97-98% of the population who were born of citizens.
They did not need an opinion of any court, nor a law of the Congress, nor a clause of the Constitution to make them the natural citizens that they were born as.  They were born as automatic natural members of the nation that their forefathers founded.  They don’t need the government’s permission to belong to it.
And if the government pretended that they did, it would be acting exactly like the British royal tyrant who made the same sort of claim.  “Your nationality belongs to me! -and is determined by what I say it is determined by, -and I say it is determined by the brief moment when you said ‘hello, world, I’m here.’  That blink-of-an-eye here-and-gone moment determines who you belong to for the rest of your entire life, says I, the King.  If it happened to have happened on my land, you’re mine regardless of what land your parents belong to and live in and is their home.  My way and wishes are supreme!  To hell with your law of nature and natural belonging.”

That is the true face of the glorious criterion of native-birth in the USA as an added requirement imposed on the natural-citizen children of the nation.  It’s not so glorious when you are forced to get to know it really well, -as in North Korea where the government owns everyone because natural liberty does not exist, -natural rights do not exist, natural belonging does not… wait!… yes it does exist, but it is primarily at the national level.  Everyone “naturally” belongs to the government first and foremost.  All other relationships are secondary.

The nativist doctrine of required native-birth has a side that is utterly un-American, -even anti-American, because it is based on dogmatic, autocratic authority imposed against the principle of natural membership (which is an element of the laws of nature).
It is like the ancient city of Sodom in the Bible story of Lot.  Lot and his family were warned by messengers of God to get the heck out of Sodom because it was going to be destroyed by fire and brimstone from the sky.  But Lot did not want to leave since he had his life there, just like the colonies had jus soli perennially imposed in their lives as the status quo of their national environment.

But something that is innately wicked should be abandoned just as Lot was forced to abandon prosperous Sodom.  It is something that needs to be escaped from because it hides a dark side which is the chains of government ownership via its supposed authority to decide who does and does not belong to America as a natural member.  Either it has the authority to decide, -or no one has any authority to decide things of a fundamental nature since they are only determined by eternal principles drawn from the laws of nature.

The neo-nativists who support and proclaim the nativist doctrine of jus soli natural citizenship (native-birth plus American parents) have a pesky fly in their soup, a flaw in their Matrix, and it is the declaration made by the founding fathers in the first naturalization act of the first Congress in which they made it clear that foreign-born American children are to be recognized as the “natural born citizens” that they are.
Well!  How dared they!  How can one be a natural born citizen if born abroad when one simply must be native-born in order to be “a natural born citizen” and thus eligible to be President?
They are forced to propose very demeaning explanations regarding the quality of the intelligence & statesmanship of the first Congress when it put that declaration right there in the very public naturalization act for all to see and understand.  One view has to be wrong, and of course it was the lame-brain founders who didn’t realize what they were doing.
That view is strengthened in the navitists  minds by noting that all subsequent revisions altered that designation to read that all foreign-born American children are “Citizens of the United States”.
That change removed the issue of the nature of their citizenship which the first Congress deliberately emphasized in order to defend their right to seek the office of the President by being constitutionally eligible (and not merely assumed to be aliens or naturalized citizens).
With the presidential eligibility language changed to the same label used for children of all Americans, -but specifically of naturalized citizens who were the focus of the naturalization acts, -namely the highly prized status of being a Citizen of the United States, the nativists jumped on that change as “proof” that Congress had down-graded their status to one that is not eligible to be President, -as is the case for Citizens of the United States who were naturalized through their foreign father when he became a U.S. Citizen.
The later revisions of the first act, instead of addressing the foreign-born American children in a separate sentence, lumped them in with the children of naturalized citizens in one sentence and labeled them Citizens of the United States.      Later Congresses assumed that the reason that the first Congress mentioned the born-abroad citizen-children was to make it manifest that they were not to be considered as foreigners, -but that was not a concern of the first Congress, nor would it have led them to deliberately chose the label that they chose.
Rather it was that they might not be considered eligible to serve as President (as is precisely the case with the nativist doctrine).
So according to the neo jus soli disciples’ mistaken reasoning, addressing both the foreigner-fathered and the American-fathered children together shows that Congress changed the nature of the later’s nationality character to that of the foreigner-fathered children who were not eligible to be President.
But they fail to grasp that the switch to the broadest label for American citizens was not a change of any kind, nor that Congress possessed any constitutional authority to meddle in matters of natural law and its supremacy over nationality.
They believe that Congress changed them from being what they were born as (natural born American citizens) transforming them magically into naturalized citizens ineligible to be President because they lacked the magically glorious characteristic of being born of a women who just happened to have been situated on the soil of one of the States when her baby made the transition from her womb to the world.  “-poor child; he lost the presidential eligibility lottery thanks to his mother not getting her behind back on our precious American soil.”
They err by embracing the assumption that “a citizen of the United States” is an altogether different and separate class than that of natural born citizens, rather than merely the parent class for all citizens.
That is obviously a leap into irrational thinking, but it is necessary in order to explain how the third Congress “corrected” the “error” of the very first Congress which “erred” by declaring America’s foreign-birthed children “natural born citizens”.
They go even further by assuming that Congress had the authority to make such a change in the character of their citizenship, -even though they were not in fact foreigners in need of permission to be “considered as” citizens of any kind.

All of the acts use the phrase “shall be considered as…” when referring to the children of naturalized foreigners and foreign-birthed Americans, but the designations they were given  in the very first act (respectively; “citizens of the United States”; and “natural born citizens”) were erroneously assumed to be an exercise of the supreme power of Congress to naturalize foreigners.

The problem is that Congress was not given such authority by the Constitution, and never assumed that it had been given it in the epoch of those acts.  Rather, Congress was merely stating unequivocally for the record what their status was by natural law.  It was not making it so since it was automatically so via blood connections.

The children of naturalized fathers immediately became what their father had become upon naturalization because the children always follow the status of the head of the family, whose name they are known by, and who is their master, protector, guardian, custodian, mentor, progenitor and father.  By the law of nature they cannot be other than what he is.
All Congress did was declare the consequence for them when their father became an American.  His action made them Americans also because they were a part of him.  The same went for his foreign wife.  She instantly became an American through him.  She and their children became “derivative citizens” because their citizenship was derived from his.
Now lets examine the logic error they fall victim to by surmising that the “citizens of the United States” label (which applied to children of naturalized foreigners) is a separate category from that of natural born citizens instead of merely being a parent category.  An apropos analogy is in order.

Suppose you are an elderly poodle owner who wants your pets to be well cared for when you pass, so you include them in your will for life-long care.  You will states that all of your poodles are to be provided for.  But five years later you have twice as many dogs and none of the new ones are poodles.  Your will only specifies that your poodles are to be cared for, and so you change its language to state that your dogs are to be cared for.      Have you thereby changed the nature of your poodles into a different sort of dog (like bulldog) simply by not labeling them as poodles?  Or did you merely employ the name of their parent group (dogs) and not effect any change whatsoever in them.  They are still poodles as well as dogs.  They are both, -not one or the other!
That seems like straight-forward common sense that even a child can comprehend quite readily, and yet their bias in favor of defending their doctrine of the necessity of native-birth alters the way their minds work.  That is needed in order to defend the belief that Congress has the “power” to change the political nature of people when it does not have that authority under the Constitution; (-but that has not stopped the federal government and its courts from stealing that authority away from the States via illegitimate court rulings).
Anyway, by ascribing such authority to the government (Congress) a false equivalency to the British Crown is thereby created and under that equivalency the government can determine the criteria for national membership, -including an added requirement of native-birth just as was the case under the royal dictator when his government identified native-birth as the criterion of subjectship among all who were not children of hostile invaders or foreign ambassadors.
Under that regime of nationality assignment  one cannot argue that such a status quo view of nationality is illegitimate because it is presented as the true and legitimate authority of the government, when in fact the government has no such authority over the natural citizens of any free nation, -including our own, -nor those who walk in our shadow.  All natural citizens are members of their own country by inheritance of membership from their parents.  There are no other extraneous factors.  It is all natural blood connection.
Hence the absence in the Constitution of terms such as “legal-born citizen”, native-born citizen, or immigrant-born citizen.
Neither legal constructs, mandates, policies, statutes & opinions, -nor birth location coordinates, or immigrant legal status have any connection or bearing on that which is purely natural, and that’s why no other adjective was used to modify the term and requirement that the President be “a born citizen”.  Only “natural” was used and no others are allowed, -with even “native” being excluded.
The only way that the constitutional language is not subverted is with “natural” meaning what it actually means and not what some want it to mean.

by  Adrien Nash  March 2014  obama–nation.com

Foreign-born Presidents & the Native-birth Heresy  PDF

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers