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–

The Damnable Doctrine of Nativist Citizenship   PDF

Membership by Right vs Citizenship by Law

Membership by Right vs Citizenship by Law  pdf

The American national history and policy regarding citizenship for foreigners is spread across three distinct periods. The second began when the new nation was formed in 1789, and the third began in 1898 with the Wong opinion of the Supreme Court.
Before that, national citizenship was based on State citizenship  with the individual States that formed the union retaining their sovereignty over who they regarded as their citizens and Congress only tasked by the Constitution with making a uniform rule to make their naturalization qualifications uniform across all of the States.

For nearly a century, foreign women could not become Americans except by marrying an American. Why not?  Because they were under the headship of their father well into adulthood and carried his foreign nationality as their own.  They remained as a member of their own family and that family was foreign.  Only sons could step outside of the family and attach themselves to another nation and seek to become a member of it.

Why were they allowed to naturalize but not their sisters?  Because they could and would become full citizens while women could not become full citizens since they were viewed in the patriarchal world as akin to chattel.  They did not possess the rights of CITIZENS because they were not subject to duties of citizens, -the first and foremost of which was the obligation to contribute directly in national defense.
That obligation was enshrined in the oath of naturalization that men-folk took in order to sever their remaining connection to the sovereign government of their homeland and pledge their allegiance to their new country and its Constitution.  They swore on the Bible that they would bear arms in the defense of the nation (if required) and that was an oath not written to be taken by any woman.  Women were not under any obligation to bear arms since they and children were the ones for whom defense was purposed.  Being in the protected group that men were responsible to defend, they were not subject to the federal jurisdiction that extended to all able-bodied American men within military age.

That meant that foreign women could not be required to serve in the American military, so since women had no civilian citizenship privileges and duties anyway, there would be no purpose for them to obtain American citizenship.   They could not defend the nation and its people.  They could not vote, serve on juries, serve as government officials nor as elected officials.  And they could certainly never be President.  Thus no naturalization rule was ever written for them.  [Their rights in foreign nations were no better, but were probably worse.]

Naturalization in America involved a serious severing of a man’s old loyalties and obedience to his own nation and government.  The severing via the taking of the sacred Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation was akin to cutting an umbilical cord that attached him to his homeland and it’s society, and rejecting the umbrella of protection of its government, -which was accompanied by an obligation of obedience.

To understand that second period of American history, one needs to think of the immigrant foreign family (such as my mother’s immigrant great, grand parents and their four daughters) as a single unit, -headed by the husband & father, encapsulated within a political placenta attached to an umbilical cord rooted in their foreign homeland, -to which they could return and continue their lives there as natural members and natives of their country.

The attitude of our national government was to view them as a single foreign unit separated from all Americans by being surrounded by the barrier of foreign membership.  If a birth occurred within that foreign sphere, -within the placenta with a foreign attachment, it was as if it did not occur on American soil but on foreign soil because the foreign subjectship of the father surround him and his, the whole family unit.

That was exactly the same as the attitude of the national government toward a foreign minister or ambassador if his wife gave birth within one of the several States.  He was alien as well as all within his family regardless of their birth location.
The sphere that surrounded the immigrant family can be thought of as comprised of two hemispheres.  -One is the natural connection to his own kinsmen or countrymen, while the other is his location within the sovereign borders of his own nation.  He and his own were “within and under the jurisdiction” of his own nation while living within it.

But while living within the American States, half of that sphere was no longer surrounding them.  Only the natural ties to his homeland remained, -also known as his alienage.
Within some States, that openness and closeness to American soil fostered the attitude, policy and law (inherited from colonial law) that any children that might be born to him in America would be considered as a citizen of the State into which he had emigrated.

But that was not consistent with the view adopted by the national government which was ultimately responsible for dealing with international relationships, including those regarding foreign subjects.
As a result of the two different approaches to citizenship, for a century there were unresolved doubts that such domestically born children were really American citizens.
Those questions were resolved by the Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark when the court opined that U.S. born children of Chinese immigrants are American citizens, and thus by extrapolation, so also were the U.S. born children of all other immigrants.

The issue as to citizenship hadn’t been in regard to alien-born females (because all females were in effect merely American subjects) but rather their brothers.

If they were viewed as State citizens due to native birth, and were elected to office as adults, then were they also eligible for national office when the national government did not recognized their national citizenship?  So, under the rule of two separate governments, State citizenship was not the same as national citizenship, in particular regarding the right to serve in Congress and as President.

They were foreigners by birth to foreign parents who might have always remained foreigners, and the U.S. government rejected the notion of embraced dual-citizenship, just as bigamy was rejected by American society.
What happened in 1898 was the Supreme Court deciding that the original and intended meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause; “All person born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are a citizen of the United States” would mean something else, something much less than what they meant as written and ratified.
That something that they dropped out of sight was one’s natural obligation to defend one’s own nation.
That obligation was invested in the men of the family, starting with the father, and inherited by his sons upon maturity.
Foreign men, by American law and policy, were not subject to that obligation as American men were because they were not citizens, remaining still within the remaining hemisphere of their foreign attachment and jurisdiction.
When the high court ruled that the native-born children of immigrants were Americans regardless of the families intact foreign attachment, then that opened the door to the view that if the child had American roots via its birth within American jurisdiction, then the father and sons also had connections to their new nation and thus shared the responsibility for national defense.
From then on, they were subject to military conscription, even though they were viewed as foreign nationals.  And that remains the policy still. They must register with Selective Service.

In response to the court’s opinion, the Attorney General adopted the policy that subjection to American sovereign authority was not a consideration and in effect had no meaning as concerns the male responsibility in national membership.
He thus eviscerated the intent of the 14th Amendment, the concept of family unity under the father, and natural foreign attachments as a factor in determining American citizenship for any and every baby born within U.S. jurisdiction, -even if not subject to it as required.

Ever since his total bastardization of the very clear and simple Supreme Court opinion covering children of only immigrants, any baby born in U.S. territory is erroneously assumed to be a U.S. citizen as long as his father isn’t an ambassador.    ~   ~   ~

When you were born, by what right did you belong to your mother (and she to you)?  I know what you’re thinking; by every right, -both natural and legal.  But you are mistaken.  Your right was 100% a natural right and 0% a legal right if one is referring to actual law.
All that the authority of government does is to recognized and validate your natural right.  Your natural right is an issue of blood, -and whose blood you were born with by natural inheritance (aliens or Americans?) .

By your blood relationship to your mother, and your father, you are a natural member of their family, -and government is not needed to validate that right but is obligated to support and defend it.
That right never needed to be written because it is fundamental to the very nature of all living sentient creatures who have a higher nature that includes natural bonds.  That natural right exists side-by-side with the right to live, and the right of self-defense.  It can be called “the right of belonging”.

“The defense of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation—of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice.

James Wilson, -Lectures on Law, Chap. XII, “Of the Natural Rights of Individuals,” 1790.  U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

No one gives these rights to you, and no government grants them.  No matter how authoritarian a government might be, for its non-imprisioned population, the right of belonging is sacrosanct.  It cannot be violated without very good reason springing only from protecting a child from harm, which is an obligation of government towards all of the civilian members of the nation.

The natural right of belonging is not bounded by one’s immediate family only.  It extends to the greater family of which they are a part as members, from clans and tribes, to countries and nations.
Every child is born with the natural right to belong to whatever societal group the parents belong to.  That is not a right that our founding fathers would have ever ceded to government caprice, policy, sentiment, or legislation.

It was their inviolable right and would never be surrendered for any reason.  And it was not surrendered, -even though many who fail to understand fundamental American principles might think otherwise, presuming that the old way of the English Kings is still controlling the lives of Americans today.

We fought a war of independence to overthrow the old royal dictatorship, including ownership based on a native-birth paradigm.  The Americans switched from having to acknowledge before the revolution that “I am a subject of the King because I was born within his territory.” to “I am no one’s subject and I belong to my country and nation because I was born of countrymen and citizens of the nation.  I inherited my membership naturally through my blood connection to parent members.”

That declaration could and would be accompanied by its sister declaration: “And it does not matter where my mother delivered me from the womb, because I naturally belong to her and my father, and as part of them I am also a member of the people and society and nation of which they are a part.”

Bottom line?  Native-birth is absolutely an irrelevant factor in determining who is a natural born citizen of the American nation and eligible to be President, because the issue of birth location is wholly an arbitrary human-invented factor that has no relationship to natural membership and natural citizenship.   A “natural born citizen” is everyone born of citizens.

By a Supreme Court opinion, a child can be born as an American citizen, but being a citizen is not the same as being born as a natural citizen, which must be the true natural status of all Presidents.  They constitutionally cannot be alien-immigrant-foreigner-born.  They must be born of only an American mother and father.

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–

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–

Debunking the BS of Bloviating Windbags



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

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

It is an established maxim…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~     ~     ~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where exit from the womb occurred was irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Adrien Nash 2-14.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers