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.
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 the exactly 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 also (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

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

St. George Tucker’s American Heresy

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 1:App. 316–25, 328–29 (1803).
“By cutting off any acquisition or inheritance of foreign allegiance and citizenship through jus sanguinis (inheritance from alien parents) or jus soli (acquisition from birth in a foreign nation), the “natural born citizen” clause was seen as serving to advance the goal of keeping foreign and monarchical influence out of the Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military by requiring future presidents to be born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, which produced allegiance, loyalty, and faith only to the United States from the moment of birth.

Indeed, any person born after the adoption of the Constitution who was born with allegiance to any foreign power was to be excluded by the natural born citizen clause from being eligible for the Office of President and Commander of the U.S. military.”
St. George Tucker  was what you could call very “high minded”.   We was partly thinking in a philosophical realm, and then applying its concepts to the real world.  But guess whose philosophical realm he was thinking in?  That’s right, the one in which his mind was raised and indoctrinated, -that being the realm of the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings.
That realm altered the way his mind functioned, just like the religious dogma realm altered the way the minds of the inflexible, autocratic rulers of the Churches functioned whenever they encountered any newly gleaned facts of science.  They were programmed to thinking in one way and one way only.  And so also was Tucker.
At the heart of his programming was a concept invented solely for the purpose of strengthening and solidifying the authority or royal dictators.  The entire concept was solely for their benefit, and that concept was of course the concept of allegiance.  Allegiance is an amalgamation of “natural” loyalty, “natural” debt of gratitude, and a resultant obligatory obedience to royal authority.

His use of the language of the over-thrown King’s justification for power and its exercise, shows that Tucker was thoroughly brain-washed and indoctrinated by the monarchical system of thinking regarding one’s relationship to larger entities.
The two dominant entities in British life were the unquestionable authority of the Church of England and its Laws, and the unquestionable authority of the Crown and its executive agents.  What did they both have in common?  They were vertical structures, -not horizontal.

All top-down command structures are vertical, with the military being the best example.  From the General to the Privates, the only horizontal relationships are those between peers of similar rank, with commissioned officers even forbidden to fraternize with non-officers, i.e., enlisted personnel.  That’s a line that can’t be crossed.
The officer corps’ authority over enlisted personnel is absolute, just like they are kings.  The impression of their infallibility is a fiction maintained in the minds of the enlisted personnel and serves to support a mind-set of total obedience.  That is the mind-set in which is grounded the concept of allegiance to the Crown.  Its sister is that of loyalty to a nation.  They absolutely are NOT the same thing.

One is to a person or office, while the other is to one’s own, to one’s home and people, -and in America, one fundamentally important thing more, and that is to the principles of the revolution, -principles of Liberty, Natural Rights, and self governance.
So when Tucker wrote: “By cutting off any acquisition or inheritance of foreign allegiance and citizenship through jus sanguinis (inheritance from alien parents) or jus soli (acquisition from birth in a foreign nation),..” his thinking was in the philosophical weeds of the British vertical system of absolute royal authority.
The foolishness of that dogma is seen in how disconnected it was from reality.  It’s basic tenet was that allegiance is like a trait of character that is biologically transmitted rather than inculcated by years of social familiarization through childhood and youth.

He used the word “citizenship” in place of nationality, -apparently oblivious to the fact that Britain was not a democratic republic governed by its citizens but was a monarchy governed by a dictator and his aristocratic Parliament of men with inherited titles of nobility in a “Class system” in which the people were not citizens but subjects.
He writes of “inheritance of foreign allegiance and citizenship through jus sanguinis” when the truth is that all that one inherits is their national membership, -which in Britain’s case, was subjectship.  If actual allegiance to the King was inherited, then why would so many people have fled his rule and sought to become Americans instead?
See, the monarchists wanted to pretend that along with one’s mandatory obedience being inherited, one’s required, “natural” loyalty was also, although that is completely asinine.  Loyalty cannot be imparted via any natural means.  It only comes through the sociological means of acculturation through early life.  So any talk of inheriting allegiance is pure high-concept philosophical garbage that serves only the monarchy.

But that talk and way of thinking was justified in the minds of those whose thinking had not been revolutionized and revamped by the realization of mankind’s Natural Rights.  And that justification was based on thinking that the “inherited” allegiance that was “owed from birth”(!) was not an element of the totally rejected British system of rule but was a perfectly natural thing that continued on in the newly liberated sovereign nations of America.
But how could that be?  By simply shifting its focus away from the King and placing it on… -well, they weren’t quite sure what it was placed on exactly but it was American whatever it was.  Well, in truth, it was nothing other than their own fellow Americans themselves.  People who dare to attempt to govern themselves owe each other their honestly, fidelity, and loyalty or else they absolutely will fail.

That is allegiance democracy-style.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything inherited from birth as some sort of tangible or intangible thing.      What is inherited, latently, is the eventual obligation to support, participate in, and defend the democracy and liberty that one is born into, along with one’s government and its efforts to defend living in freedom.

But obligation, duty, responsibility are not synonyms for allegiance because they do not include the elements of loyalty nor gratitude toward a king or government for its “protection” nor “owed” obedience in return.  Every society grounded in required obedience and not accepted shared responsibility is a dictatorship.

Such nations do demand “allegiance”, just ask any North Korean.  But that is not the basis of democratic republics.
Tucker writes of cutting off the acquisition of something that one cannot in fact acquire by birth, but he combines it with something that one can, and the reader fails to recognize the error of doing so.
One can and does inherit their nationality but no one can inherit loyalty, submission to authority, or obedience to orders.  Human nature rebels against being dominated by one’s peers, but of course royalty did not include any of one’s peers since royalty was on a much higher plane.  But exactly where in America and American government do we find royalty, -as in superiority?

Answer: only in the vertical hierarchy of the military, -but not in the horizontal matrix of civilian life which is not governed by the military, but is governed by peers, by one’s equals (even though some feel they are “more equal” than most).
So nationality is inherited but “allegiance” is not.  That fact adds to the destruction of his next claim, which is that “allegiance” can also be acquired by  “jus soli (acquisition from birth in a foreign nation)”.

It’s plain and simple that a nation that is not your own can bestow citizenship on anyone born on its soil.  If you are Canada, and your neighbor is the United States, there is no down side to doing so but if you are South Korea, and had a border with the North that was not closed, pregnant North Korean agents of the government could be delivering children on the soil of the South and acquiring citizenship even though they would be raised and brain-washed in the North.  A most undesirable situation.

And conversely, if a pregnant South Korean woman had a baby while visiting the North, the North could claim it as one of its subjects, and that would not provide anything except negative consequences.
So the question unasked and unanswered by St. George was:  “how exactly does one “inherit” anything from the soil, or from borders, or from law?”

Obviously the idea is asinine on its face.  Allegiance can conceptually be inherited, though not literally, but how the hell does one even conceptually imagine that it can be inherited, transmitted, or inculcated (at birth) from a non-parent, or from a purely conceptual human construct of legally assigned membership?
That is inconceivable.  Yet his programmed thinking regurgitated that line from the library of a mind educated in British Law.
If you were born in North Korea when the plane your pregnant mother was flying on had to make an emergency landing due to some flight  problem that pushed her into pre-mature labor, would your jus soli “North Korean citizenship” impart a sense of foreign allegiance into your psyche that you would still be resisting all of your life because it calls to you to be loyal to the North Korean dictator?   [I rest my case.]

So St. George was simply full of it, -full of indoctrinated thinking that had become such a deeply rooted part of his thought-life that it never occurred to him that it might be just a whole lot of hooey.  He never had a total revolution in his manner of thinking, and thus never fully grasped the founding principles of the nation.

From Wikipedia:  As a young man of 19, Tucker moved to the colony of Virginia in 1772 to study law under George Wythe. Upon arriving in Williamsburg, Tucker entered the College of William & Mary. Tucker passed the bar on April 4, 1774.
During the American Revolutionary War, Tucker enlisted in the Virginia militia as a major under the command of General Robert Lawson;” [becoming indoctrinated with the vertical command structure in which he, as a major, was a god over his enlisted subordinates.  I have some experience with that as that indoctrination happened to my father and eventually ruined his family life and marriage.]

“Tucker used William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England as the basis of his course at the College, but added discussion on how the Commentaries differed from American law. Tucker also added lectures on principles of American government, and told his students that the laws passed by American legislatures, both state and federal, would be more important in his course than the authorities whose treatises were the traditional resources for learning about the English common law.
[he recognized the primacy of American law but failed to recognize his own failure to adopt all of the American principles]
Along those lines, Tucker’s course would discuss how civil law principles had replaced common law ones in American jurisprudence since the Revolution.
…Students were expected to study outside of sessions by reading the great treatises on English law.”

And what was a major element of English law?  The application of principles of royal sovereignty over all subjects through the employment of the invented doctrine of allegiance, -which was presented not as invented but as the perfectly natural order of nature. But it was only “natural” within the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings, and not natural in the real world where actual natural principles are eternally immutable.

“Under Tucker’s plan,…students would be expected to know ancient and modern history, politics, and constitutions (with special emphasis on the Virginia and United States federal Constitutions); and they would also have to “be well-versed in” ethics, municipal laws, and British laws still in effect in Virginia, as well as rules of practice in the Commonwealth.”

“Tucker taught his courses from his home in Williamsburg so that he could have his full library, an extensive and well-regarded collection of Virginia law, United States law, and the law of nations, close at hand.”
“Tucker was known for writing extremely thorough opinions that analyzed numerous angles on every issue involved in the case;” [but he failed to analyze his own acquired views regarding natural membership, -simply swallowing entirely the then current British view.]

“During his tenure, Tucker ruled in the notable case of Hudgins v. Wright (1806), a freedom suit in which his former mentor George Wythe had decided in favor of freedom for the slave Jackey Wright and her two children. She had sued for freedom based on her grandmother’s and great-grandmother’s American Indian ancestry, as Virginia had ended Indian slavery…
Based on the Court of Appeals record, Wythe appears to have based his ruling on two elements: that the three Wrights appeared white and their master had not proved that they were slaves or of African descent, and that residents of Virginia had a presumptive right to freedom based on Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights.  The Wrights’ master appealed the case.
Tucker and the other appellate judges (all slave-holders) disagreed with Wythe’s argument that blacks could be presumed free at birth (as were whites). They noted that Africans (“negroes, Moors and mulattoes”) had been brought into the state only as slaves and were non-Christian.(!)
Tucker wrote that the Declaration of Rights applied only to “free citizens, or aliens”, and could not be applied like a “side-wind” to overturn the “rights of property” in slaves.   [empasis added]
~The justices affirmed freedom based on the Wrights’ Indian ancestry and the limited nature of Indian slavery in Virginia, and the appellant’s failure to prove any African ancestry on the maternal side. ”

That kind of says it all.  He was a slave-holder who had no problem with human ownership and vertical hierarchical authority ruling over lesser beings.  By the Virginian model, anyone born on the King’s plantation belonged to the King, and anyone born of the property of a slave owner belonged to the slave owner.  Slaves produced newborn slaves as a result of property rights instead of freemen who had never been purchased and thus should be free from the ownership of purchase.
Ownership was tied to property rights, and land ownership whether in regard to slaves or in regard to government, borders, citizenship and nationality.  One “belonged” to the place where one was born, -even though one also belonged to their own society as a result of natural membership inheritance.  If that’s not philosophically schizophrenic, what is?  And yet he never had the thought to examine that contradiction since it never occurred to him that it even existed.

Tucker’s quote continued with: “…the “natural born citizen” clause was seen as serving to advance the goal of keeping foreign and monarchical influence out of the Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military by requiring future presidents to be born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, which produced allegiance, loyalty, and faith only to the United States from the moment of birth.”
I hardly need to point out how asinine it is to claim that anything “produces” anything in a baby “from the moment of birth”.  But aside from that absurdity, we also see his British–Virginian indoctrination in the practice of embracing jus soli as government policy and law.

That was never, as in NEVER,  a policy adopted by the laws of the national government of the united STATES, nor was such a thing ever codified in any manner in any constitutional amendment.  That makes perfect sense since it would be an unnatural hybrid-combination of an unnatural policy with a natural principle, -the principle of natural membership.  That combination was embedded in his thinking, just like the justification for slavery was also.
He was brain-washed by being in and of a jus soli colony / state that was also a long-time slave colony.  There’s no way his thinking would have been anything different since he was steeped in British law and slavery, and not American principles.

All of the authority in the world does not correct a mistaken belief, or else we would not have a world history of nearly every major discovery and realization being rejected by all of the authorities of the day.
Tucker’s view of American liberty was skewed by his indoctrination, and he merely repeated what he had learned and had absorbed from the “authorities” in British law who preceded him.  They were all wrong about the nature of membership in a free democratic republic and how it is acquired and what it requires.

It is a mistake to assume that Tucker was expressing the view that the common words “natural born citizen” applied only to the presidency and not to the basis of American citizenship itself.
The gist of his view was not that only Presidents must be born in the united States but that no one but those domestically born are even citizens at all by natural nationality inheritance.  That violates the Natural Law of belonging, natural bonds, -of natural association,and natural membership.

His thinking attempts to marry jus soli with jus sanguinis.  That’s like combining a ballpark’s Life-Pass tickets with a need for season tickets.  If you have one, then you don’t need the other.  You don’t need both in order to get in, but the jus soli + jus sanguinis theory says that you do.

Such a marriage has never existed in human history by the laws of any nation, (including Britain, which was jus sanguinis in principle but jus soli in practice) because one is either a natural member of their parents’ nation or they are not, and where they were born cannot abrogate their natural birthright to membership in the society into which they were born by being born of members of that society, even if one entered the world somewhere else, (-as is unavoidable due to many circumstances, including being born of one serving their country as an ambassador or representative of various kinds).

Dictatorships can pretend that it is within their natural authority to accept or reject their own natural members based purely on where by happenstance they happened to have entered the world.  That authority is not natural authority but is a totalitarian, North Korean sort of authority.  Totally illegitimate, -even though accepted by dominated and subservient subjects.

Such authority was recognized in Britain for a time, but eventually they all came to realize that their own children were not aliens if born abroad -with that eventually-abandoned view resulting from the attempt to avoid inconsistency in the doctrine of royal dictators who insisted that not only was one born subservient to his Royal Majesty but was subservient for life, with no right to reject his authority and choose a new nation and new government to live under as a free member, -free of his autocratic rule.

You see, if you claim that all souls born within your territory belong to you for life, then the same policy applies for the kings of foreign nations where some of your subjects might give birth.  That results in exposing a flaw in the Matrix of the royal doctrine which is that such a position of government defied nature, because it required identifying all English children who were foreign-born as being aliens and the natural subjects of foreign kings rather than being subject to their parents and through them being subject to their king.

Dictators always pretend that they rightfully have more natural authority than they do, and the British Crown was no different.  The problem was that so many educated men like Tucker never experienced an epiphany that opened their eyes to the fact that the very basis of such authority was illegitimate, -just like slave ownership.
One is either a member of their society by being born of members (citizen parents) or is a member by the permission of its natural members (via their laws, traditions, or policies that legally acknowledge or “recognize” domestically born children of outsiders as being members of society, -but not by any natural right.  Membership by legal permission is far too easily conflated with membership by natural right although they have no connection whatsoever, other than the fact of being born.

But tradition is very powerful, and so ubiquitous in the psychological environment in which one grows up that it seems identical to natural principles since both are equally determinative, but tradition can be completely unnatural, -and yet won’t be recognized for what it is because it is unquestioned, automatic, universal, and inescapable, -just like real natural law principles.  Tucker failed to recognize the difference and therefore spoke things from a view that failed to understand underlying reality.

Understanding natural reality and the nature of babies makes one cognizant of the fact that babies are not born with an innate loyalty to anything, but are born with an innate natural right to share membership with their parents in the society of which they are a part.  Tucker failed to look beneath the covers of legal dogma and see the truth beneath.

by adrien nash  march 2014,  obama–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers