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.
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 Law of Natural Belonging

versus U.S. “Imperial” Citizenship Policy

Individuals who think have at some time or other wondered “who am I?”. But that question can’t be answered without first answering the question that precedes it, -which is; “what am I?”
The problem is that that question is never answered because it is never asked. It never even comes to mind. It’s like the air pressure we exist in. It’s unrecognized, along with all of the implications of its answer.
What we are is the most fundamental issue in human life because our entire orientation to the rest of humanity is determined by it. Are we born as human cattle, required by our subservient nature to obey and follow our masters? Or are we born free?

With the complexity of human nature being what it is, it’s accurate to say that for many people, the answer to both questions is “yes”. That’s possible because the question combination isn’t legitimately logical. What we are by nature and what we are by Right are two different things.

We may be born free by natural right but not be adult enough to want to be completely non-dependent on those who are more adult or more capable at caring for us, -including financially.

So the questions are really aimed at those who are beyond the adolescent stage of life and are far closer to what is conceived of as being adult, if just in the social sense. What we are determines our role and position in life; …leader?… or follower?; -teacher or student?; superior or subordinate?; independent, or dependent?
What we are determines our role(s) in life, including our relationship to those with the legal and martial power of government. What is the proper role of government in society? What are its rights?

That can only be answered by first knowing what the natural rights of individuals are. What they are determines what those of government are, -and are not, since it is an artificial creation of the individuals of a nation, -provided the nation is actually free and not an autocracy or plutocracy. Under those systems the answer to the question of what we are is answered very negatively, with negative consequences for all who are not members of the ruling elite.

They define  RIGHTS  in terms of the rulers and not in terms of the ruled. The problem with that satanic approach is that there is no natural limitation on where their RIGHTS and assumed POWER ends. That is why absolute power has always corrupted absolutely.

Mature human nature rejects the power-grabbing greed of would-be masters and senses that their good intentions will not outweigh their bad and selfish inclinations when they reach the point where they have to choose their own personal benefit or the benefit of others.

Those who come to positions of authority, and see themselves as directors, executives, officers, administrators, supervisors, judges, masters, deciders, decree-ers, and dictate-ers are almost always incapable of seeing themselves as servants, -as in servants of WE, The PEOPLE.

Their power gives them a sense of “rightful authority” over their equals as well as their inferiors when there is nothing “rightful” about it. It is instead a sacred trust, a moral duty which springs from an obligation to represent the protection & defense of the rights of The People, and not an arbitrary and self-benefiting exercise of power lacking the consent of the governed.

The rights of the governors is therefore rightfully determined by their relationship to the rights of the individual. So determining what those rights are will answer the question of what we are.

We cannot be something that we are naturally not, and we cannot not be something that we naturally are, so we must deduce what we naturally are.
That is achieved by understanding how we are naturally constituted. How are we made or what is our innate nature? Not our own individual nature at today’s point in our life, but the innate nature of our species at the stage of adulthood.

Being born into a matrix of societal authority, our thoughts do not generally turn to the issue of what our rights are but to what our needs are, -what our wants are, -what will fulfill us and make us secure. As seen in a nation like China, one’s natural rights take a distant backseat to the issue of one’s financial advancement, and that is easily understandable since you cannot eat or wear or drive your right to speak your mind.
We treat our rights merely as an issue that opens doors to fulfill our needs and wants, and not as a primary issue of life that is equal to or superior to our needs and wants. We fail to properly prioritize our rights until they are threatened or stolen from us. That is exactly the reality expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

It speaks of how men naturally acquiesce meekly to the trampling of their rights because rebellion is an extreme and radical response to abuse, but… when the abuse becomes intolerable, they will forcefully reassert the rights that they had unwillingly let slip away via the usurpation of personal liberty, -a usurpation fostered by the oppressive dictates of dictators.

Only then do their minds begin to fully focus on what their natural rights are. The first one that then comes to mind is the natural right of self-defense. No one can tell anyone that they have no right to defend themself because that right is an innate instinct of all living things.

What does it spring from within human society? It springs from the first right of all, which is born in the most fundamental instinct of all, and that is the innate will to live.
The will to live and the right to live are naturally married throughout one’s life, -although they can tragically become divorced.
The right to live is the right that is most central to humans living together and not annihilating each other. If a despotic sadistic alpha-male has no consideration that others have that right, then you have pure evil on Earth. But among civilized beings, that right is recognized and paramount.

But an even deeper question can be asked, and that is; “From what even deeper right does the right to live spring?” That question is not one that need not necessarily be asked because it necessarily must be asked and answered because the answer changes everything by providing a force to make possible a matrix or framework of free and civilized life.

That force is like gravity. Without gravity we still have life, but we do not have an order conducive to living and pursuing happiness. We need gravity to ground us, and everything else, -just as we need an answer to the question about what our right to live is based on. The answer is the gravity that holds together a human existence that is capable of seeking and finding happiness within a social environment that includes individual Liberty.

The answer to the question is that the right to live springs from the fundamental right of ownership, -not of property but of one’s very self. Who owns you? Is it anyone who is stronger than you and can dominate you? Is it the government? Or do you own yourself? If you own yourself, then your life belongs to you, and no one has any right to take it.

What does human nature tell us about ourself? Does it tell us that we are born to be someone’s slave? Or that we are born to be free of anyone else’s ownership over us because we own ourselves?
The answer is not a philosophical one because it springs from the very nature with which we are constructed. It is innate, part of the fabric of our being. Independence is the only air that our spirits want to breath until the heart enters a relationship of co-dependence.

Beings that own themselves (“freemen”) do not accept dictators running their lives and herding them like cattle because the self-appointed masters do not own them. No one does. They own themselves. That is their natural right because that is how they are made. The core of their make-up is the spirit of self-autonomy.
But their natural right to own themselves does not end at just themselves. It extends to that which they rightfully own and need for self-protection and maintaining their existence. And it extends further still, -to those who are intimately tied to them; -their spouse and children.

They are a part of them and cannot be separated by any authority other than rightful punishment, -or for their own personal protection and right to be free from threat and harm. Otherwise they are all one unit, bound together by bonds of devotion and blood. They belong to each other.
And that brings up the issue of the other fundamental right, and that is the right to belong. One might think of it as co-ownership. One belongs to one’s self but also to another to whom they are naturally connected.

I’ve been told that there is a grove of Aspen trees in the High Sierras which are unlike other trees in that instead of each tree being a single individual tree, they are all linked together underground. Their roots are all connected to each other as one organism. No tree is an island unto itself.
That is similar to the situation of families, clans, tribes, and countries. In all natural countries, bonds of kinship bind them together, and those bonds are all natural bonds. Those bonds are the reason they are all natural members of their own people, -their own country.

When a country is advanced enough, it becomes a nation that is governed by established laws, written laws, administered by servants of the State. If the State is a monarchy or a dictatorship, then the members of the nation are its subjects.
If the State is an independent democratic republic, then the members of the country are the citizens of the nation. They are bound to their countrymen and to their nation by the natural bonds of kinship, -including the kinship of respect for natural rights and principles of individual liberty.
It is those natural bonds that produce natural members of the country, and natural citizens of the nation.

Government does not produce natural members of the country. Rather, the natural members of the country produce the government and the nation of which they are natural citizens. The nation belongs to them and they belong to it as a member of the national family.

They do not require the government’s permission to be what they are naturally.
Their membership is automatic, immutable, permanent because they are either of the generation that created the government or are descendants of those who did. (or they are members by legal allowance, -being children of those made legal members by immigration and naturalization)

What they are is seen in what they naturally belong to. They are first freemen and members of their family, and second they are countrymen, and members of their homeland, -and third they are citizens, -members of the nation established in their country.

The government does not make them freemen. The government does not make them sons and daughters, husbands and wives. Those bonds are natural bonds; -bonds of the heart and bonds of blood.
The government does not make them countrymen because they are born into that relationship with the fellow members of their homeland.
And THE GOVERNMENT does not make them CITIZENS because they are born as citizens by being born of citizens, -as the natural members of their own country and nation.
Their relationship to their family, their society, their country, and their nation is a blood relationship passed from parents to children generation after generation after generation.

Government does not create that relationship and government cannot terminate it. It is beyond any authority given to it by those who created the government. How could freemen give the government the right to own them and own their children as well, and to tell them whether or not they are accepted as members of their own nation?

But that absurdity is exactly what most people were raised to believe to be true. It’s not an overt belief that is indoctrinated into us all of our young lives. It is very covert, and it comes in the form of the belief that government owns us since it owns the means by which we were allowed to become members of our nation. It makes the rules and its rule is that members must be born on the government’s land.
Where do we find such a rule that is the source of the government’s “authority” over our membership? It does not exist.
The government has no such authority over us nor over our natural membership in our own country and nation. We belong because we were born belonging. Belonging is as much our fundamental right as is the right of self defense, -which is its sister right.
The right of belonging comes with the right to be defended and the duty to defend those to whom we are bonded. The able defend the disabled or less able. The strong defend the weak. The young defend the younger and the elderly. The mother’s defend the children. The males defend the females, etc. That is the duty of their bond.

That duty extends all of the way from one’s own immediate family on up to one’s nation. It is a natural duty to which we are born and which sustains societies and nations in times of attack or grave impending danger.
Governments are aware of the natural bonds and natural duties of their citizens, and require that members fulfill their obligations when and if needed. Many nations have mandatory military service for all young men, and Israel requires it even of her young women. That reflects a clear understanding of the right of self-defense, not just of individuals but also of nations charged with protecting them in perpetuity.
Governments rightfully require young people to do their duty not because they own them but because it is their natural duty to their own people and their own countrymen who are united in the task of national survival and defense of freedom.
And like a father who does not allow his children to shirk from their assigned chores, so the government does not allow its lazy and reluctant sons to shirk their national duty.
If they refuse, they will be sent to the woodshed of the federal penitentiary. But just as one can quit their family, so citizens can quit their nation because that is their natural right since they own themselves and are not the property of the government.
If the government owned you then it could tell you that you are no longer a member of the nation, and perhaps worse, neither is your wife, -nor your children. But if you have a primal right to own yourself, and a natural right to belong to those to whom you are bonded by nature, then government can do no such thing since you belong to the nation by a fundamental natural right which cannot be infringed.
That right does not evaporate at the water’s edge, nor just across an artificial and usually invisible border. It is an organic right that cannot be separated from you by any circumstance because it is supreme over all legitimate government authority.
An extension of your right to belong to your own is the right of the children you might produce. They inherit that right as a birthright and it is theirs regardless of the location of the momentary transition from womb to world.
Neither that event nor its location can negate their natural right to belong to the people and nation of those who produced them and in whose image they are formed. They are natural members at birth, by birth, before birth, and after birth. And “birth” does not mean birth-location. It means the process of producing new life, -new American life.

end of part 1 (of 3), pages 1-4 of 10.

by Adrien Nash  March 2014  obama–nation.com

Revealing the Truth and Exposing Errors

about the nature and origin of citizenship

Part 1.  Revealing the Truth and Exposing Falsehoods  (Parts 1 & 2 PDF)

An advanced search of the term “natural citizen” located this from the Harvard Law School Library;     ~THE VEST POCKET LAWYER booklet c. 1919
~418. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
419. The Constitution of the United States gives to every natural citizen (and guarantees to that citizen) political, religious, and civil rights.
420. Every natural citizen of the United States is, first, a citizen of the United States.
The term “natural citizen” describes one who is naturally a citizen and not so via permission of law written for allowing foreigners to become fellow citizens.
The term is included here because of its absolutely central importance in understanding the nature and origin of organic citizenship.  That origin is Kryptonite to both those who defend the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama, and those who debunk it.  It kills their erroneous theories.

a.r.nash ruminates:    ~a new thought…
One enters the world as a living infant but with a certain political character invisibly attached.  It’s not attached in the real world but in the political world, -the world composed of nations.

That character is determined by who one’s parents are. It is inherited. It determines one’s nationality and citizenship.
Also, what one is determines what one is not.
From that standpoint, one can make an metaphor of birth resulting in one of three possibilities in connection to presidential eligibility.

One is either born live, -possessing the life and the political DNA of their American parents (or a widowed American mother);  or…
one is born adopted, -possessing the political DNA of a foreign immigrant father or mother (via the political equivalent of a sperm-bank donor and/or egg donor with artificial insemination); or…
one is born dead, -with the political DNA of a non-immigrant foreigner who is the child of an ambassador, a hostile invader, or a guest of the U.S. government and in the country on a temporary Visa instead of with a Green Card (which makes one a member of American society).
Born Live: one is a natural born citizen by being citizen-born.
Born adopted: one is a constitutional citizen via the 14th Amendment (as construed in 1898) by being immigrant-born.
Born dead: one is an alien and not a citizen by birth to a non-immigrant father.
That is the category in which Barack Obama was born.
(1) He was born British. (uncontested).
(2) His mother’s citizenship was not transmitted by U.S. law.
(3) His father’s residence status was as a temporary guest so neither father nor son were subject to the full sovereign authority of Washington.

(4) Only those born fully subject (the citizen-born and the immigrant-born) are U.S. citizens.
(5) Obama Jr. was not born subject.
(6) Obama Jr. was not born a citizen.
(7) No non-citizen is a natural born citizen of the United States.
(8) No non-citizen is eligible to be President.
What could be clearer?  It’s natural logic and natural and national law.
~     ~     ~
So far, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has not refuted anything that I’ve written because he has not addressed what I have actually written.  Instead he just pulls out his talking points one more time and rehashes them while leaving my remarks completely ignored.    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
He falsely thinks that merely countering them with his own views is a form of dissection of my comments, but if there is no dissection at all, then such a counter is a cop-out that avoids direct confrontation with that which he is unable to refute.
If I say that the sun will rise tomorrow because the Earth is rotating, and then Mario says the sun will rise because the Sun is revolving around the Earth every 24 hours, his statement refutes mine but it does not address it.  It merely proclaims an alternative explanation without first demonstrating the falsity of mine.
He can not demonstrate the falsity of things I’ve discovered and so he avoids attempting to even address them.  Rather, he just repeats his own view, which if accepted by the reader as true, then must be embraced as a pseudo-refutation that in fact is no refutation at all.
I share why and how his logic is defective, but one using defective logic may be unaware that they are doing so because of bias blindness.  I can’t fix that for him, -though Lord knows I’ve tried.

“When an honest man discovers he is mistaken,
“he will either cease being mistaken,
“or cease being honest.”
~anonymous

    Mario wrote in response to my claim “…you saying that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to naturalize people….”
Fact: Congress has no constitutional authority at all regarding immigration and naturalization except to make the State naturalization laws uniform.
All the authority it wields was stolen from the States by the federal government’s usurpation led by the Supreme Court.
“In Henderson v. Mayor of New York, the Court held [6-1] that all immigration laws of the seaboard states were unconstitutional because they usurped the exclusive power vested in Congress to regulate foreign commerce.”(!!!)
“In response to Henderson, States obediently  surrendered and abolished their Immigration Commissions and Port Authorities.
Then the entire burden of orienting foreigners and turning away the incapacitated fell to private, philanthropic organizations.  Overwhelmed by the strain that immigration put on their resources, charity workers petitioned Congress to have the federal government assume the duties of regulating the influx…
In the 1880s Congress began to bring immigration under direct federal control for the first time.  It could no longer rely on volunteerism or informal processes to manage this powerful social force.”
Kermit L. Hall, PhD  “Immigration,” The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005
~      ~      ~
Mario talks a great game when it comes to “allegiance”, steeped as he is in the King’s royal right of human ownership, obedience, and subjugation, but for one born of Americans, allegiance is not relevant except in regard to the upbringing of children, and the naturalizing of foreigners.
There is no allegiance required of the natural citizens of the United States because where natural obligation begins, required allegiance ends.

What free men are bound by is natural DUTY; -RESPONSIBILITY for their own defense, and that of their family, and society, and nation, -not loyalty and obedience to a king or government.
Free men are not subservient to a monarch or government in exchange for protection because they protect themselves!
Young men “owe” their society their service as they replace older men who rendered theirs when they were young.  Allegiance is not a factor, whether felt or not.  Obedience trumps loyalty.
Necessary obedience to their natural duty is what justifies government forcing them to perform it.
Those who’ve never signed their life away to the federal government do not know the reality of such things, and have no grasp of the depth of their ignorance.
Naturally, loyalty is highly desirable and a unifying and inspiring force in all military units, but with or without it, orders must be obeyed because one is obligated to do their duty for national defense.
The founders though were bound by allegiance, to each other by solemn oath; pledging to each other their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
They required a similar oath of all men following the Declaration of Independence.  “With us or against us… decide and swear, -or refuse and leave.”
Btw, no oath of office in America requires swearing allegiance to the United States.  Instead they require defending and following the Constitution and the law.  Your oath is to it, not to the government or nation.
The bond of all countrymen is to each other and to our Constitution, -not the government that bastardizes it with almost everything it does.
The only allegiance the Americans embraced was to the revolution and to each other, and to their home country (colony). They had no allegiance to other colonies / States, and their relationship to the Union was purely self-defensive in nature, since if one was attacked, they all were threatened.
Promulgating a doctrine that is quintessentially  un-American requires wandering into a political religion that has no American roots. Its roots are in the Divine Right of Kings. And we overthrew that system.
If those who are possessed of patriotic notions of allegiance connected to U.S. citizenship could do so, they would quotes oaths of allegiance to America, to the United States, or to the government, but they can’t because they do not exist.
All allegiance is to the ideals of America, to its foundational values, -to the Constitution, and the rule of law, and to each other.  Nothing else can be trusted. We can’t even really trust each other because a third or more of us are socialists.
Mario’s quoted paragraph from a “prestigious law review made in its 1845 edition” is pure anti-American garbage!  Is that too blunt?
It is 100% statist delusion, -having no connection to republican democracy.  It begins right off the bat with a gigantic ignorant error: “…the character of an individual, as citizen or subject,”
Understand this, the character of a CITIZEN is not to be associated with that of an owned, subservient subject, anymore than it is to be associated with the character of a slave.  The two are from two related but completely different worlds.

William Rawle was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania. Later, in 1825, Rawle authored, “A View of the Constitution of the United States” in which he specifically addressed national citizenship. Rawle wrote, “every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution”.

Everything Mario wrote is correct about Wilson and Rawle.  He did not supply any quotes but I came across the Holy Grail of citizenship origins in the Dissertation of David Ramsay (a founder), What he wrote flattens everyone’s sacred beliefs, and I illuminate it in its own lengthy exposition.

Rawle was a Pennsylvanian.  That is equivalent to being a Virginian.  Jus soli was an entrenched part of their consciousness, and that’s why he wrote with unwavering certainly regarding native-birth equaling natural born citizenship.  That was his view of natural membership, but it was not based on nature.  Nature is this: Like father, like son.
And what did the Supreme Court say in Minor v Happersett? Did it express his confidence in his belief about natural belonging?
No!  It said there are unresolved doubts about the citizenship of the merely native-born (born of foreigners).  So the dogmatic authority of Rawle was no authority at all, except in Pennsylvania, -and Virginia and the other two “commonwealth” States, -in those “countries” (as they called them) they allowed native-birth citizenship instead of only natural or naturalized citizenship.
But what was the basis of civic participation under the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776?  Only that one had a stake in society.  That meant any freeman who paid taxes.
There was no such term as “subject” or “citizen” even used in their Constitution because all were viewed as equals.  All adult male members of society could vote and be elected, even if of foreign origin, because they had a stake in everything that native-born members did.  That was true equality.

Article I. That all men are born equally free, and independent; and have certain, natural, inherent, and inalienable rights;
II. That all men have a natural, and unalienable right to worship Almighty God.
It was all about Natural Law and Natural Rights.  They viewed the native-born as equal and indistinguishable regardless of parentage.  But that was not the view of the future central government of the nation.
It rejected presidential eligibility based solely on native-birth because that didn’t prevent loyalty to a foreign power.
Everyone belongs to the society in which they are raised. It is their only world and they are a part of it.  But no one belongs to the place where they were born unless that is where they were raised.
Two hundred years ago they were one and the same.  Everyone was raised where they were born, so a logic error came naturally, one which conflated the two and failed to recognize the possibility of being raised somewhere else, somewhere foreign, with foreign values and foreign loyalty.
The Founders were not unaware of the easy possibility of a British wife giving birth in America and then returning to Britain where she and her loyal-subject husband would raise a son who was loyal to their king.
They knew that such a son could not be recognized as an American merely because of where he exited his mother’s womb.  The place born and the place raised in such cases would NOT be synonymous. And that hair needed to be split, and it was (for the sake of national security) by employing the world “natural” in the presidential eligibility clause: “No person except a natural born citizens… shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
That means a citizen by nature, -and that means by blood connection or natural political conveyance.
The State where an alien was born might consider him to possess State citizenship.  No problem.  He would use State citizenship as the basis of possessing American nationality.
But the national government had a Constitution which prevented him from being President because he was not a natural citizen of the nation.
A State might view an alien-born son as one of its natural born members but it was only one “country” of thirteen.  It didn’t matter what it considered.  What mattered was “who rules the full executive and military power of all thirteen countries of the Union?”.
That person had to be guaranteed to possess no foreign alienage, and that was impossible to guarantee if born of an alien with foreign attachments.  Hence, the term “natural born citizen” meant something different at the national level than it may have at the State level.  Two different entities, only one of which determined the constitutional meaning of natural born citizen.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. validly wrote:
“~notwithstanding Justice Gray’s bold and unsubstantiated pronouncements in Wong Kim Ark regarding the English common law, there was no English common law jus soli rule of citizenship that prevailed in the United States after the Constitution was adopted and ratified that would have made Joseph a citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. validly wrote:
William Rawle is not in the same league as Founder, Framer, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson.
Rawle’s is not a statement of a man that was influenced like the major Founders were by natural law and the law of nations in forming the new America.
There is no element of Lockean consent to being a member of society in what he said.
Missing from his statement is the element of parental influence over their children emanating from their duty to rear and educate their children.        He does not ascribe to the idea that children have no capacity to consent during their years of minority, and therefore follow the condition of their parents, and are not truly “free” like their parents until they reach the age of majority, -a concept which is the foundation for the Founders’ political philosophy that man had the natural right to expatriate himself from the society in which he was born.”

“On the other hand, Wilson was steeped in natural law and the law of nations; believed in consent, parental influence over children, that children followed the condition of their parents, age of reason, the state of being “free” obtained at the age of majority, and the natural right to expatriate.
Rawle was not a signatory to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a major contributor to the drafting of the Constitution. Wilson was.
Rawle simply stated a conclusion without any context or support. Wilson did not.”
“Rawle conflated and confounded being a citizen of a state with being a “natural born citizen.”  For Rawle, being a citizen of a state prior to the adoption of the Constitution automatically made one a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. Wilson did not so err.
Rawle does not have historical and legal sources which support his statement. Wilson does.
In short, Rawle missed the American Revolution and is no authority on the meaning of a “natural born citizen.” Wilson is.”     ~     finis
~     ~     ~
There was no natural born citizenship in common law.  There was no citizenship period.

“The Framers definition is the only one that matters.”

They did NOT have a definition of “natural born citizen”.  The English language defined it, -not men, not law, not a foreign philosopher.  ENGLISH!
Who defines “native inhabitant, or “indigenous population”, or “natural member” or “first born sons”?  Men? -or the definitions of words?
If you ask a false question, (What is the legal definition of a natural born citizen?) you’ll get a false answer.  There has never been a legal definition.
~     ~     ~
Not all American families (and college students) were present in America in 1776, but in due time returned from England to the land of their nativity as new CITIZENS of their native country  (former colony) which was then an independent sovereign nation) and took the citizen’s oath of allegiance then.
Where their children were born was irrelevant (in their home country or abroad) because their national membership was via inheritance, -nothing else, -no added extraneous factor included, in other words; native-birth.
If after July of 1776, they traveled abroad after becoming CITIZENS of their homeland, (-the country/colony/ State of their birth), a child born to them abroad was an American by Natural Law and a recognized natural born member of the father’s country, -as would have been the children of all American Ambassadors and others born abroad before the adoption of the Constitution, -including Thomas Jefferson (Paris) and John Adams (London).
The word “natural” is devoid of any connection to native-birth.  Natural is via blood, inheritance, parentage.  “Native-born” is via location, borders, & law.  No connection between the two.  Two different worlds.
Confederate States Constitution:
“7) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, OR a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible…”
A blogger wrote: “The Confederate authors obviously meant that ONLY a child born on the soil of a Confederate state would be considered to be a ‘natural-born citizen’ of the Confederacy…”
That language was confused and confusing.  There is no mention of a natural born Confederate citizen being necessarily native born, so none can be presumed, even though 98% of them probably were.
The second group could have been naturalized foreigners, while the third group had to be natives of any of the States who were born before the date of secession.
What language supports claiming that native-birth was required? None. Using your own self-determined definition to explain the meaning of what is actually NOT defined is not how arriving at a definition works.

end of Part 1.  by Adrien Nash  March 2014

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers