Revealing the Truth and Exposing Errors

about the nature and origin of citizenship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

end of Part 1.  by Adrien Nash  March 2014

Natural Nationality; Britain, U.S. & Mexico

REVISED JAN 21, 4:30: AM

Misunderstanding natural…born…citizen

A whole lot of confusion, ignorance, and misconception surrounds a simple but profoundly important compound-adjective phrase that employs the words “natural”, “citizen”, and “born”.  They appear in the United States Constitution as a requirement for the presidency, and no where else in American law.  Why do they not appear anywhere else?  Because they refer to something that does not exist in American law.  It is a differentiation that is not legal in nature but sociological.
All other references to citizenship in the Constitution include all citizens, but differentiation is added by means of mandating a minimum number of years that one must have been a U.S. citizen before election to Congress.  But for the presidency, there is no minimum number of years mentioned because his citizenship must begin at birth.
That was the suggestion of Alexander Hamilton who proposed that the President be no one who was not born a citizen.

He proposal read:
“Article IX:  1.  No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.”

original-wording,Born a Citizen

The problem with that was that it was ambiguous because it didn’t define the nature of the parentage of a born citizen.  That nature might not be solely American because a few of the allied nation-states of America allowed their citizenship to be granted from birth to children of aliens, -foreigners, -immigrants while all of the other nation-states did not since they followed Natural Law only.

By Natural Law the off-spring are the same as the parents that produce them.  British men produced British children.  Indeed, that was made law via the British Nationality Act of 1772 for all foreign-born British children.  Englishmen produced English children regardless of where on the planet their children were delivered from the womb.
But England also allowed or mandated something else.  It considered the alien-born children who entered the world on English soil as also rightfully being the king’s subjects from birth, (although not so by birth to Englishmen).   So for its own natural subjects, Britain followed Natural Law, but since children of foreigners could not be considered Englishmen by Natural Law, they adopted a human law that made it so anyway, and it declared them to also be subjects, -not by birth (jus sanguinis, -by Right of Blood), but from birth (jus soli, -by right of soil).

No official State declaration delineated the difference between the two, instead it was blurred by recognizing that the difference was irrelevant, and national membership by descent was of no importance or superior over membership by place of birth.  It wasn’t that the difference didn’t exist; -it was that it made no difference to one’s civil rights and responsibilities.  Thus, it didn’t have to be even acknowledged.  It would have made no difference in the colonies either until the Revolution, but would later make a difference in the eligibility of the men who might seek to be something that didn’t exist in Britain, -namely the President of the nation and chief commander of its military.

The difference between nationality by descent and nationality by place of birth was essentially non-existent in the minds of all since everyone that everyone knew were people who had been born in Britain of British fathers except for the occasional alien-born native child.  So interest in the subject of the origin of national membership was non-existent.  Except…for those British children born on foreign soil, -but for them nationality laws were passed to insure their acceptance as British subjects.

All bases were covered, and the issue of the source of nationality was not an issue since it made no difference for all those born within and under the dominion of the British Crown.    That means within the imperial domain or territory and under the power and authority of the monarch and national government.  Since British men were deemed to be subjects in perpetuity, -meaning their entire life, it came to not matter if they had a child on foreign soil because it was subject to the Crown also through its blood connection to a father who was subject for life.  So eventually the law recognized that Natural Law fact.  Thus, any child of a British father, born anywhere, -within the dominion or out of it, was a British subject of the King or Queen, along with the small fraction of children born of immigrants in Britain.

While the issue of the origin of one’s national membership was out of sight,…out of mind, it was connected to an enormously important issue, -that of Natural Rights.  While enlightened thinkers became very aware of the issue of Natural Rights, the monarchists had to reject it entirely since it was subversive to their preferred and embraced foundation of national authority which was Royal Rights via the doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings.
Under that doctrine you were the King’s subject and he was your Lord & Master because Heaven decreed it to be so.  It was God’s plan for national governance.  Thus, whatever souls came into existence within his territory & authority belonged “rightfully” and “naturally” to him.
That was so pervasive in the mind-set of  past epochs that it was not even recognized as what it was, namely, not a principle at all but instead a self-serving, autocratic, dictatorially imposed choice of the top power, (a conquering King or a hereditary heir), -a system and regime plan selected by fiat and enforced by power.  It was connected to no principle whatsoever.  Thus the need to cover the naked imposition of one-man rule by relying on the shielding skirt of Divine Right.
(To be fair though, most people readily submit and are comfortable under a strongman, a powerful leader.  Just consider the people of the nation of North Korea.)
But by Natural Law one is not a member of their own family or clan or tribe or country because of where they exited their mother’s womb but by their parents being the source of their life.  Natural national membership is just an extension of natural family membership, especially since countries are composed of an aggregation of families.
Thus for nations, as is so for families, the bond of blood and the right of the parents to their own children is the natural principle of natural membership.  It is the source of natural family membership and natural national membership, aka, natural citizenship.
Blood, not borders, determines which groups one naturally belongs to, -including both family and country. One takes after their parents and is born into their group as a new member.

That dichotomy, (-parentage?…-or place-of-birth?) clouded the clear thinking of many people as to what was the principle of citizenship in the proposed union of the American nation-states.  They didn’t have to have a clear understanding as long as no conflict existed between the nation-states that followed only Natural Law and the ones that followed both, like the British did.
The proposed new nation would follow the sovereign laws of the nation-states that composed it.  Whoever they considered to be their citizens would also be citizens of the aggregate nation, regardless of how they had become citizens, -naturally…or by permission of the government and its written laws.
That meant that in most of the 13 colonies or nation-states no native-born son of an alien immigrant could run for their colonial-State or the national Congress because, since their father was a foreigner, they were not citizens of the colony or State into which they had been born.

From Wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_soli#Lex_soli]

At one time, jus sanguinis (right of blood) was the sole means of determining nationality in Europe and Asia. An individual belonged to a family, a tribe or a people, not to a territory. It was a basic tenet of Roman law.[3

But it was much later, when the independence of the English colonies in America, and the French Revolution, laid the foundations for jus soli and with the social and economic development of the 19th and 20th centuries,  accompanied by the massive migrations to the Americas and Western Europe, that jus soli was established in a greater and greater number of countries.[3]

The geographer Jared Diamond has calculated that if the application of jus soli since 1850 were abolished, 60% of Americans and 80% of Argentinians would lose their citizenship, and 25% of British and French.[3] [Why?  Because then only natural citizens (those born of citizens) would be U.S. citizens.]

At the turn of the 19th century, nation-states commonly divided themselves between those granting nationality on the grounds of jus soli (France, for example) and those granting it on the grounds of jus sanguinis (Germany, for example, before 1990). However, most European countries chose the German concept of an “objective nationality”, based on race or language [i.e., culture & blood]

Lex soli: is a law used in practice to regulate who and under what circumstances an individual can assert the right of jus soli. [e.g. the 14th Amendment]  Most nations provide a specific lex soli, in application of the respective jus soli, and it is the most common means of acquiring nationality. [only for native-born children of all foreigners since natural citizens inherit their national membership]

Jus soli around the world

Jus soli is observed by a minority of the world’s countries.  Of advanced economies (as defined by the International Monetary Fund), Canada and the United States are the only countries that ***observe*** birthright citizenship.[6][7][8][9] As is shown clearly on the map, the jus soli is mainly in use in “the new world” — the Americas [descendents of imperial colonization and not original nations].  Since 2004, no European country grants unconditional birthright [border-based, jus soli] citizenship. [10][11]  [yet America continues blindly onward]

In an August 2010 report, the Center for Immigration Studies, (through direct communication with foreign government officials and analysis of relevant foreign law including statutory and constitutional law), was able to confirm that 30 of the world’s 194 countries ***grant*** automatic citizenship [-to alien-born children born within their borders, a la the 14th Amendment]

Restriction of jus soli

In a number of countries, to discourage illegal immigration, automatic citizenship by jus soli has been withdrawn or restricted by imposing additional requirements, such as requiring that at least one parent be a legal permanent resident [a Green Card immigrant] or that a citizen parent has resided in the country for a specific minimum period of time.[8]

Jus soli has been restricted in the following countries:[23]

  •  Australia:[5] Since 20 August 1986, a person born in Australia acquires Australian citizenship by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident or upon the 10th birthday of the child regardless of their parent’s citizenship status (see Australian nationality law).
  • Germany: An exception to the increasing restrictiveness toward birthright citizenship, Germany, prior to 2000, had its nationality law based entirely on jus sanguinis. Now, children born on or after 1 January 2000 to non-German parents acquire German citizenship at birth if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and had this status for at least three years) and the parent was residing in Germany for at least eight years.
  •  Ireland: On 1 January 2005, the law was amended to require that at least one of the parents be an Irish citizen; a British citizen; a child of a resident with a permanent right to reside in Ireland; or be a child of a legal resident residing three of the last four years in the country (excluding students [like Barack Obama Sr.] and asylum seekers) (see Irish nationality law).[5]   etc., etc

Abolition of jus soli

Some countries which formerly observed jus soli have moved to abolish it entirely, conferring citizenship on children born in the country only if one of the parents is a citizen of that country. India did this on 3 December 2004, in reaction to illegal immigration from its neighbor Bangladesh; jus soli had already been progressively weakened since 1987.[37]

Ireland abolished jus soli, which had been enshrined in the constitution, in favor of jus sanguinis in the 2004 referendum on citizenship, as a reaction to a perceived influx of asylum seekers.

United States

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Its wording was initially interpreted to exclude many Native Americans because they were not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and, thus, were not American citizens. However, Congress later extended citizenship to all aboriginal peoples in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.[41]

In an analysis of Census Bureau data, the Pew Hispanic Center found that about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 (about 340,000) were offspring of unauthorized immigrants, with a total of 4 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents residing in the country in 2009.[43] The Center for Immigration Studies asserted that up to 400,000 children are born annually to illegal immigrants, representing about 10 percent of all children born in the United States.[44] Citing their numbers and concerns over “anchor babies“, some lawmakers and activists have proposed abolishing jus soli in the United States.[5][45] Other commentators have argued that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment was incorrect and should be narrowed to only establishing the civil rights, privileges and immunities of the freed slaves.[46]

Britain: Before 1983, birth in the UK was sufficient in itself to confer British nationality irrespective of the status of parents, with an exception only for children of diplomats and enemy aliens. This exception did not apply to most visiting forces, so, in general, children born in the UK before 1983 to visiting military personnel (e.g. US forces stationed in the UK) are British citizens by birth.  [note: before 1983, the Brits were as stupid as we are, but they reformed; we never will]

Before 1983, as a general rule “Citizenship of the UK and Colonies” (CUKC) was transmitted automatically only for one generation, with registration in infancy possible for subsequent generations. Transmission was from the father only, and only if the parents were married. (See History of British nationality law.)

Those born abroad to a British father (or born after 1982 to a British mother)…are considered automatically British and can apply for a passport directly through the Identity and Passport Services (IPS).[11]

Before April 2006: The European Economic Area Immigration  Regulations[20] provided that with only a few exceptions, citizens of EU and European Economic Area states are not generally considered “settled” in the UK unless they apply for and obtain permanent residency. [a Green Card equivalent]  This is relevant in terms of eligibility to apply for naturalisation or obtaining British citizenship for UK-born children (born on or after 2 October 2000).  [citizenship is tied to permanent residency.  Non-immigrants, aliens not settled, are not eligible.  Foreign visitors and students (like Obama Sr.) are never considered to be settled in the nation in which they are visiting or studying.]

Registration as a British citizen

Registration is a simpler method of acquiring citizenship than naturalisation, but only certain people are eligible for it.  Cases where persons may be entitled to registration (either as a matter of law or policy [i.e., an accepted practice which is not law) include:

  • Children born in the UK where after the child is born a parent obtains British citizenship or indefinite permission to remain [the native-born child is not a British citizen but can become one via registration]
  • Children born in the UK who live in the UK until age 10.  [Ditto, -native-born but not British]

Many other countries do not allow dual nationality (see Multiple citizenship). If a person has British nationality, and is also a national of a country that does not allow dual nationality, the authorities of that country may regard the person as having lost that nationality, or may refuse to recognize the British nationality. British nationals who acquire the nationality of a country that does not allow dual nationality may be required by the other country to renounce [by oath or statement] British nationality to retain the other citizenship. None of this affects a person’s national status under UK law.

The Master Nationality Rule is a consequence of Article 4 of the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws of 1930.

This provides that;“… a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a state whose nationality such person also possesses.”

In terms of practical effect, it means that when a multiple citizen is in the country of one of his nationalities, that country has the right to treat that person as if he or she were solely a citizen or national of that country. This includes the right to impose military service obligations, or to require an exit permit to leave. [note: natural citizens are free from the entanglements of dual citizens since both parents are citizens of only one nation, -transmitting only one nationality.]

~    ~    ~    ~    ~

So Congress could be composed of not just sons of Americans but also sons of aliens if they were born within one of the States that granted them citizenship.  Sons by blood & citizens by nature would be the vast majority, but among them might be a few “sons of the soil” by the benevolence of the natural citizens of those few States that allowed naturalization-at-birth for children of immigrants.

That was Congress, but that could not be allowed for the position of Command in Chief of the American military.  With that position placed in the hands of the future President of the Union, his citizenship had to be clearly defined and differentiated as to whether it could be only one form or could be both.
Hamilton’s suggestion could not address that issue adequately since its terminology involved a term that was ambiguous.  Natural citizens were all “citizens at birth” (born as citizens) but not by an allowance of law, rather, by transmission of the father’s political nature.  Their citizenship was not given to them by government since it was inherited, but the citizenship bestowed on children of immigrants was a gift of State law given at birth.  It could have been given instead after one year of U.S. residency, -or ten years.

They had no natural right to it since they, like their fathers, (-made in his image), were outsiders like him, foreign, the subjects of a foreign monarch to whom they owed obedience and allegiance.  They were not sons of Americans and had no right to be President, -to be the leader of the Americans and their militia.

But the necessity of including the element of timing (at the time life begins) shows that it is an arbitrary criteria selected by human choice, -not resulting from any natural law.  That also shows that such a gift of national membership is not natural membership since it requires human volition and choice.  Such children are therefore not accurately labeled as “born citizens” but merely as “citizens from birth”.  Such children have no natural right to citizenship and that is why it has to be given to them by statute.  They are the 2-3 percenters.

So, the President had to be more than just any man born with citizenship.  He had to be a natural American, born of Americans, and not someone given his citizenship in spite of being born of foreign parents.  He had to be “a natural citizen” having only American parents.  He had to be citizen-born and not alien-born.

~by Natural Fact or Philosophical Fiction

But if the framers of the Constitution had stated that the President must be a natural citizen, that would have been an ambiguity of law since all citizens are natural citizens by a fundamental American legal fiction.  That fiction was and is based on the American doctrine of citizenship equality.  One citizenship for all, -all being equal with no superior or inferior classes of citizens.  In America there is only one class of citizens, -not two, -and they are all natural citizens (by nature or by legal fiction).

–Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Washington, 1784:  “The foundation on which all [constitutions] are built is THE NATURAL EQUALITY OF MAN, the denial of every preeminence but that annexed [connected] to legal office [the presidency, or governorship], and particularly the denial of a preeminence by birth.”  [especially position & privilege of nobility, but also superiority as co-members of the national family.]

Classes of citizensSo the “rules vary from state to state” [nation to nation] with America not following the general rule but following a higher path and higher law, -a law of oneness, of undifferentiated unity, -a law of twinness and clones.

The American attitude was: “When it comes to our American citizenship, you, -though born in Britain or France, having rejected and publicly renounced your King in a form of treason, have become one of us.

You are now not just joined to us, accepted by us, adopted by us.  Instead, you are us and we are you.  We are brothers, -not by the national blood we were born with, but by the Spirit of Liberty that drives and animates your being, as it does ours.  In time you can serve to help govern us.  The only thing withheld from you is the position of  command of our armies.  To prevent treason of a kind that could result in civil war, we allow only natural citizens by blood, by birth, by inheritance, to be the Commander in Chief.”

Since natural national membership was the case for 98% of the population, the remaining percent of citizens (foreigners who became immigrants) would need to undergo a process to make them members of the American family, -to make them natural members of the family and not stigmatized, adopted members with an inferior position in the family.
That process was akin to Christian baptism for those newly converted to Christ.  They are immersed in water which represents the death and burial of the old fallen human nature, and then are raised from the water,  -representing resurrection from death and rebirth as a new reborn being with a new spiritual nature.

The process to make a foreigner into an American was similar in that it stripped him of his old life as an obedient loyal subject of a foreign royal dictator, and remade him into a free and independent democracy-embracing natural American citizen just like his American brethren.  He was natural-ized, thereby becoming a fellow natural citizen, just like all other American citizens.

Those who were natural from birth because they were made / conceived and born in the image of citizens were children who entered the world as Americans.  It didn’t matter where they were born because they were the same as their brothers born within U.S. territory by the two facts of citizenship equality and citizen origin by Natural Law.  They were born automatically as members of the nation because their fathers were subject to the American government.  That was not contestable, -nor was their automatic citizenship.

The foreigner made himself subject via the Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation -which remade him into one who could, in time, serve his nation in its government.  But nothing, including a national fiction of law, could make him someone who was born as a natural citizen.
Being “reborn” as a natural citizen is clearly not the same as being born as one.  So the element of the origin of one’s citizenship, -clarified by mentioning the point of its commencement (birth) was necessary to eliminate the unwanted and dangerous ambiguity inherent in the term “natural citizen”.
By combining it with “born citizen”, that was achieved.  That was suggested by John Jay, former President of the Continental Congress, as well as the future first chief justice of the Supreme Court.  He warned Washington by letter during the constitutional convention that the office of Command in Chief should not be given to nor devolve on any but “a natural born citizen”.  (underlined by him) This is it in print:

wording-john-jay-letter

[“New York, July 25, 1787
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army should not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.”]

BLOOD CITIZEN vs SOIL CITIZEN

His perspective was that if foreigners can become new natural American citizens, then how much more would the legal fiction of natural citizenship be applied to the children who were born in and raised in America by foreign parents ?
What’s wrong with a native-born child being allowed to be the American chief executive, politically and militarily?  Answer: -the danger that any well-to-do, influential wealthy foreigner who had a son born in the States during a mere visit or limited residency could return to his own nation and subjection to his own king and raise his son to be  similarly loyal, all while his son maintained possession of American citizenship, and could one day return to the States and seek high political office, including the Presidency.

How could any sane American endorse the possibility that a popular loyal Englishman might one day be the head of the American government?  That absolutely had to be avoided.  Hence, the President has to be one born as a natural American citizen, -an American by birth.

Using only the wording that he had to be “a natural citizen” would open the door to those who surely would claim, as some still do today, that anyone born with citizenship at birth is certainly a natural citizen regardless of Natural Law.  So John Jay had to emphasize that the President not be just one considered a natural citizen (since that conceptually included all natural-ized citizens) but only one born as a natural citizen and not merely made into a natural citizen via a legal fiction.  He had to be a natural born citizen, -by birth, by parentage.

His focus could have been on the ambiguity of either “natural citizen” or “born citizen”.  His focus was on “natural citizen” which he disambiguated with the addition of the underlined “born”.  If his focus had been on the ambiguity of “born citizen” then he would have reversed the order of the two adjectives and inserted “natural” as in “a born natural citizen”.

A similar situation can be seen in a term like “a young white woman” which (depending on one’s focus) could also be “a white young women”.  If one’s focus is race, then the former would be written, differentiating between a younger and older white woman.  But if it is youthful women, then the latter would be written, -differentiating instead between young woman of different races, calling for the underlining of “white”, i.e., “a white young woman (as opposed to a Black  or Asian or Hispanic young woman).

They both mean the same thing but emphasize something different, -just as “a natural born citizen” is the same as “a born natural citizen” but emphasizes something different.  Underlining “natural” would emphasize the idea of natural by birth and not by a legal fiction.
It’s obvious that one natural-ized into a “natural citizen” by naturalization process is not one born as a natural citizen.  The problem is the tiny plot of ground on which stand those who declare that anyone born with citizenship via native-birth is a natural citizen and therefore eligible to be President.  Their stance rests entirely on perverting the meaning of “natural” and applying an alternate fictional meaning by which a child of an alien is born as a natural American.
In reality they are merely born with citizenship as a result of the choice of two justices of the Supreme Court who tilted the balance and produced a ruling that they are Americans regardless of having been born of alien immigrants.
If their interpretation of the 14th Amendment had  been the opposite, then alien-born children would not even be U.S. citizens at all, -much less mis-identified as natural born citizens.

But natural citizens are not born with citizenship by any act of government nor any embraced legal fiction.  They are born as true natural citizens and not fictional natural citizens.  Their citizenship is not determined by the location or event of birth but by conception.  From conception they are predestined to be Americans and nothing else, -but children of foreigners are not since they can be born outside of the United States and thus not be citizens at all.

That’s not possible for American babies.  Although their citizenship is not recognized until birth, (since their personhood is not recognized until then) their American national membership is a natural element of their organic political nature and can’t be separated from them by mere circumstance of birth location, -nor anything else.  They’re innately and solely American from conception to death.

 14th Amendment Citizenship

American ignorance and confusion do not stop with the presidential eligibility clause.  It is equally as extensive regarding the meaning of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, which reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”.

John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as:
“simply declaratory, -that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”
If the amendment, like the Civil Rights Act of 1866, was simply to make constitutional a common law policy of treating native-born persons as citizens, then the nationality of the father, the subjection he was under, and the allegiance that he owed would not be relevant in the least and Bingham would not have mentioned the parents.  But it was very relevant because the son takes after the father when it comes to his name, his status in life, and his national identity.

The confusion about the amendment is three fold, -leaving unanswered the questions; (1) what does subjection mean?  (2) what does jurisdiction mean, and (3) what is the nature of that statement itself?
The statement is declaratory, -a statement of existing reality, not a reordering of it.  It does not proclaim what shall be from henceforth.  That fact shows that it is not an exercise of sovereign national authority to effect something new, -some new national policy but merely declares for administrative purposes what the constitutional position of the U.S. Government is toward persons who meet certain criteria.

Its purpose was to embed an undefined, unexplained, ambiguous declaration into the Constitution as an amendment that Congress could not change nor modify once passed.  After adoption, it could only be explained or interpreted by members of the Supreme Court.  They could interpret it one way or the opposite way, depending on their preference.  They didn’t do that until three decades had passed with it being undefined.

What I want to clarify isn’t what its requirements mean, but what its nature is and isn’t.  Everyone misunderstands its nature.  They believe it reveals something that it absolutely does not reveal because it is not what they think it is.  They think it is a kind of declaration of the principle basis of citizenship in the United States, but it is no such thing.  They think like that because they don’t really think about its nature at all, which is best described as “limited”.

It’s limited not by what it says but by what it does not say, -which is plenty.  It says; “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”  It doesn’t say; “All citizens are persons who are born or naturalized in the United States…”  But that is how people read it.   Yet all it does is declare the citizenship of certain persons who meet certain requirements.  It does not delve into the citizenship of other citizens who existed before it was written, and existed after, -unaffected by it, -nor those who do not meet the native-birth criterion because they are foreign-born Americans.

Native-born natural citizens are not dependent on the amendment even if described by it.  But describing something is not the same as creating something or elucidating a controlling principle.  Observations change nothing, and that is what the amendment essentially is; -an observation of an political fact.  It did not establish the fact because the fact was multiplex and undefined.

Ambiguity was the milieu behind and beneath its emphatic words, -words that had an appearance of clarity but instead were a boatload of the undefined and confusing constitutional elegance of simplicity.
A few illustrations will make that clear.  If I say that children in my home who have blue eyes are my natural born children, -have I defined who my children are?  Is that really an accurate and comprehensive declaration?  What of my niece and nephew living with me who have blue eyes?  What of my son who is away at summer camp?  What of my brown-eyed adopted child?

If I say that children born in my home, or adopted, are my children, does that say why they are my children?  Which facts support the statement?  None because none are given with it.  No definitive language was used so no definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Children could be born to me outside of my home, and children could be born of others inside of my home, so the subject of who my children are is not defined by any parameters or exclusion.  Thus, the statement, though seemingly clear, is entirely ambiguous.  It’s the same with the 14th Amendment.

It does not say who is not a citizen, nor say that only the people mentioned are citizens, nor differentiate between two very different ways to meet its description.  And that is at the heart of the confusion,…-the omission of any differentiation between the 97 % of the population who are citizens by blood and born within U.S. borders, and the 1-2% or less who are citizens, though alien-born, thanks to the Amendment’s declaration as interpreted 30 years later by the Supreme Court.
All the amendment does is state two conditions that describe U.S. citizens.  It does not elucidate any principle by which their citizenship is acquired; -is it passed down from parents to child or granted via policy of the government based on native-birth location?…Silence.

It does not declare that jus soli is the policy of the United States regarding citizenship.  It only declares two conditions (and naturalization) that together produce citizens, -only one of which is understood today.  The other one has faded into the fog of ignorance as knowledge of history has been lost, -along with the consciousness to connect the dots found in history.

What are those dots?  They are the historical status quo of who was subject and who was not subject to the authority of the American government over U.S. residents.  Were only citizens subject or were immigrants also subject?
The Amendment did not answer that question but instead left it up in the air so that a future court could decide what was actually a legislative issue, and not a judicial issue.
That future court, three decades later, decided that it would usurp that authority from Congress and decide a legislative issue but do so without even broaching it.  Instead, it did it through the back door, so to speak.  It made a ruling that carried very real but unwritten implications, and by stealing the authority of Congress, they imposed a major alteration to the American policy extant since the founding of the nation.

What was that policy?  It was that only Americans, -American men, were subject to the duties of citizenship.  Who was not subject?  Who could not vote, or  serve in elective office and government positions of authority, serve on juries, and serve in the American military?  Answer:  Foreign men, alien children of foreign men, Black men, American women, and children.
The restriction on foreign men and their of-age sons was manifested in the Civil War military draft act of 1862  (the Enrollment Act)  They were plainly excluded from subjection to the U.S. Government’s authority to force American men to do their duty to defend their nation.  It spelled out that only white citizens and immigrants who had officially declared their intention to become citizens were subject to the draft.

Those foreign men were viewed as what they were, namely permanent members of American society who had adopted the United States as their home, and its government as the only authority over them.  They were no longer subject to their homeland and its king or government.

But foreign men who were only visiting or merely living in the U.S., -but with no expressed intent to become Americans, were viewed as aliens who remained under the authority of a foreign power and had a citizen’s duty to obey its orders, including serving in its military.
From the perspective of the U.S. Government, any child born to them in the U.S. was in the same category as their father.  Alien.

At maturity such sons could choose to naturalize and become citizens or they could remain as citizens of their father’s country.  They could not do both from the standpoint of the American government.  There was no dual-citizenship based on native-birth (other than within individual states that allowed it of their immigrants’ children).
That was the situation by the choice of the American law-makers and it was executed by the executive branch as the law of the land.  But six justices of the high court overthrew the status quo using stealth, deception and silence, -without even addressing it.

They may, or may not, have been aware of the implications of what they decided, but its implications were recognized by the executive branch and its Attorney General when the next war involving conscription appeared a generation later (World War I).

What was the implication?  It was that since the subjection that a child, -a son, is born under is that of his father, then it could only be assumed that if the sons of foreigners were declared to be U.S. citizens per the 14th Amendment (by the high court in the U.S. v Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898), and it was based on fulfilling the subjection requirement of the amendment, then, by extrapolation, the father must have been subject also, -subject to the American government’s authority over male American citizens even though he was still subject to a foreign power and had expressed no intent to change that.

The consequence for immigrant men was that they became, contrary to the law in the Civil War, subject to conscription and military service in war.
I knew an elderly Mexican national who told me that he didn’t agree with that view, -one which the government sought to force him to comply with while living in the U.S. during WW II.  They arrested him, tried him, convicted him, and sent him to a federal penitentiary, -and all because of the Supreme Court ruling that alien-born children are Americans if born within U.S. borders.

The amendment does not spell-out who is subject and who is not, so the court imposed its choice and thereby made maybe millions of native-born aliens into Americans.  That was citizenship by jus soli.

Because of that decision, and the vague, philosophically non-descript constitutionally elegant wording of the amendment, it became erroneously assumed that we had officially become a jus soli nation that was no longer a jus sanguinis nation.  That impression was totally wrong.  There was no change except for freed slaves and the tiny fraction of children born to foreign immigrants living permanently in America.
By contrast, the Mexican Constitution states that all persons born in Mexico possess Mexican citizenship at adulthood, -being born as Mexican nationals.  It has no secondary or accompanying requirement of subjection because it is assumed to be automatic.  That seemed to establish Mexico as a jus soli nation by law.  We have no such law because the 14th Amendment is not that simple.  It has two requirements, -not just the one of native-birth alone.   But now, our subjection requirement is ignored, and misunderstood as if it doesn’t even exist.
We are ignorantly viewed by all as being a jus soli nation when in fact we are not.  It is not spelled-out anywhere that we are,…not by any legislation or court opinion or constitutional amendment.
There is nothing other than presumption based on misunderstanding.  What goes unrecognized is the fact that the citizenship of natural citizens is of the same source as it has always been.  And they constitute 97% of the citizenry of the nation.  They are/ were citizens by blood inheritance,…as before the formation of the United States, -before the passage of the 14th Amendment, and before and after the Wong decision of the court.

The foolishness of considering the United States as being a jus soli nation can be illustrated by several analogies.  A precious metals collector has a supply of gold, and also a supply of lead.  If he is dishonest, he might mix 10% lead into his gold.  If so, he would have what?  A gold alloy.  But if he mixed 90% lead into some gold, what would he have?  Not a gold alloy but a lead alloy.  It’s all about percentage.

Similarly, if a painter mixed a cup of black paint into a gallon of white, what would that produce?  Would it be a “color” in the white family (beige, egg-shell, cream, etc.) or in the black-gray family?  Everyone would consider it to not be in the white family regardless of the fact that it would be only one sixteenth black.  That description wouldn’t reflect reality.
Similarly, if a person is one sixteenth Negro, are they considered to be black or white?  Did you know that there are names for people who are half, fourth, and eighth African-American.  The slave-owner societies used them to accurately describe their human property.  Does calling someone “ Black” -though  only one sixteenth Black, make sense?   Did it make sense for Elizabeth Warren to consider herself of Native-American descent when her word-of-mouth history meant she was only one thirty-second Indian?

Does it make sense to label the United States a jus soli nation when the annual number of legal alien-born babies is only about .1 % of the nation’s population?  -when only about ten percent of the babies born annually are born of Green Card immigrants?  If that figure was over 50% then it would make sense, but ten percent?  If there were no abortions and no contraception, that figure might be less that three percent.
So the facts and sane thinking dictate that America is not a jus soli nation and should not be labeled as such on the basis of a sliver of its newborns.
If the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment had  been the opposite, then alien-born children would not even be U.S. citizens, -much less mis-identified as natural born citizens.
By that Supreme Court ruling, alien-born jus soli children delivered from the womb on U.S. soil are declared to be U.S. citizens, but no ruling nor any fiction of law can make them actual natural citizens because that results solely from nature, by parentage, by blood, by natural inheritance.

I wrote that America is founded on a belief in equality, including a belief in the equality of all male citizens regardless of how they became citizens.  That doctrine is the basis of the legal fiction that all citizens are natural citizens, -either by birth to citizens or by natural-ization.  That is not the case in Mexico.  They do not have a doctrine of equality.  Their naturalized citizens are not equal to their native-born and natural citizens.

From wikipedia:
Mexican law distinguishes between naturalized citizens and natural-born citizens in many ways. Under the Mexican Constitution, naturalized citizens are prohibited from serving in a wide array of positions, mostly governmental.  Naturalized Mexicans cannot occupy any of following posts:

The Mexican military during peacetime
Policeman or Mayor
A member of the legislature of Mexico City
Governor of a Mexican state
Member of the Congress of Mexico
Member of the Supreme Court of Mexico
President of Mexico
In the United States, only the office of President is off-limits to naturalized citizens because he who wields the power of the American military must be a natural born American.  Citizen born. Any would-be candidate who is only “a citizen of the United States” and is not born of Americans, is prohibited by the Constitution from holding that office.

Acquisition of Nationality in Mexico

According to the 30th article of the Constitution of Mexico, there are two ways in which a person can acquire the Mexican nationality; by birth and by naturalization.
Nationality via birth:
Those who are Mexicans by birth (or born Mexican) include all those:
born in Mexican territory regardless of their parents’ nationality;
born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national by naturalization or was born in Mexican territory;
or born abroad if one or both of their parents was a  natural Mexican national.

What is missing is any mention of any principle.  The phrase “Mexican by birth” does not mean only what it says but instead means also “Mexican by law”.
“By birth” is distorted to included “by birth location”, -which is NOT birth but merely a measure of geography.  Birth can take place in outer space.  What are the boundaries or borders up there?  What would “space-born” have to do with birth location?  Nothing, because birth is a biological event, and is not connected to earth coordinates.

So the correct terminology is; “at birth or by birth”, and not “Mexican born” or “Mexican by birth”.  “At birth” relates to a prescription of law mandated by government and based on a native-birth location.  “Mexican by birth” tells us nothing about whether a child was alien-born or citizen-born.  It contains no clue as to parentage because natural Mexicans are lumped in together with jus soli Mexicans who obtain citizenship by allowance of the Mexican Constitution and not by natural means.
It’s like jus soli and jus sanguinis are placed into a blender together, mixed well, and then the result is described in law as their national policy.  Neither principle is explained or mentioned as a controlling principle.  Since they follow both they ignore both in the constitution’s wording.
But that absence of specificity and clarity does not mean that neither are adhered to when in fact both are.  That’s the simple solution to proving nationality, -just describe the circumstances and don’t illuminate the principles involved.  It’s much easier to prove where you were born (thanks to the invention of birth certificates) than to prove that your parents were citizens at the time of your birth, and you therefore were a natural inheritor of their nationality.  That complication is a huge part of most of the confusion regarding citizenship principles.

PS.  Mexican nationality entails several obligations set forth in the 31st article of the Constitution, namely:

Ensure one’s children attend public or private schools; as well as military education as and if required by the law;
to attend their municipality’s lessons of civic and military instruction;
to enlist and serve in the National Guard to defend the independence, territory, honor, rights and interests of the nation;
to contribute to the public expenditures through their taxes;…

We should be so patriotic in America, but atheists hate American patriotism because it is so rife with mentions of God and war.  That’s why it’s been banished from the schools and it’s songs are avoided.  They are now MIA in America.
I once searched an elementary school’s library to find the words to America The Beautiful.  No book of patriotic songs existed in that library, and I assume, that school.  And that was in “Republican Orange County”, California.

The Liberal, Progressive, Secular Humanist, Socialist, Atheist movement has won in American public schools.  They have been gutted of references that inspire patriotism (‘cause that fosters nationalism and nationalism is bad because it fosters wars) and faith (because it comes with doctrines of morality that produce a sense of guilt, and guilt and shame are to be avoided.  So patriotism, faith, and morality are pretty much passe wherever the “transformers” of society continue to succeed in having their unAmerican way.

  ~   ~   ~

by Adrien Nash Jan. 2014  http://obama–nation.com

Wikipedia:  As the British Empire came into existence by expansion of the territory claimed by the Crown, the dominion (or power & authority) of the monarchy and government expanded.  British subjects included not only persons within the United Kingdom but also those throughout the British Empire.   Individuals born under the British dominion were subject either as a result of birth to subjects or as a result of the allowance of or claim of the Crown over all souls born on its soil, which added the alien-born children of foreign immigrants.

Under the Divine Right of Kings, they both were claimed to be naturally subject to the King by obligation, having “a ‘natural allegiance’ to the crown as a ‘debt of gratitude’ to the crown for protecting them through childhood. Therefore, citizenship by birth was perpetual and could not be, at common law, removed or revoked” regardless of emigration outside of the empire and naturalization as citizens of other non-British nations. The crown owned them for life by the doctrine that legitimized his dictatorship, -with him serving as the divinely-determined ruler of men chosen by divine fiat.

“By the same reasoning, an ‘alien’, or foreign born resident, was seen as unable to revoke their relationship with their place of birth [the sovereign under whose dominion they were born]. Therefore, at English common law, foreign-born individuals could not become British subjects through any procedure or ceremony.

Some exceptions to this general principle [i.e., concept, idea, philosophy, position] existed in the common law, to recognize the situation of children born on foreign soil to English (or British after the Act of Union 1707) subjects. The earliest exception was the children of the King’s ambassadors, who acquired English citizenship even if not born in England [via Natural Law, patrilineal descent, political inheritance, blood, -not borders].

A later, broader, exception was enacted by the Status of Children Born Abroad Act 1350 (25 Edw. 3 Stat. 1) to allow children born abroad to two English parents to be English. Later, the British Nationality Act 1772 (13 Geo. 3 c. 21), made general provision allowing natural-born allegiance (citizenship) to be assumed if the father alone were British.

Generally then, there was no process by which a ‘foreigner’, not of British parents, (owing life-long allegiance to a foreign king) could become a British subject.  [no dual-subjects]  However, two procedures existed by which the individual could become a British subject with some of the rights of subjects. Firstly, ‘naturalisation’ granted all the legal rights of subjects except political rights (e.g. holding office) but required an act of Parliament be passed. [no doubt it wasn't cheap]  Alternatively, denization allowed a person to gain the rights of subjects other than political rights and was granted by the monarch as an exercise of royal prerogative.

Denization remained the usual form by which foreign-born subjects swore allegiance to the crown [before an agent of the Crown] until general naturalisation acts were passed [beginning] in 1844,…

The 1870 legislation introduced the concept of renunciation of British nationality, and provided for the first time that British women who married foreign men should lose their British nationality. This was a radical break from the common law doctrine that citizenship could not be removed, renounced, or revoked.

The loss of nationality at marriage [which the U.S. copied in the Naturalization Act of 1907] was changed with the adoption of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. This codified for the first time the law relating to British nationality.

British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914

On 1 January 1915. British subject status was acquired as follows:

  • birth within His Majesty’s dominions
  • naturalisation in the United Kingdom…
  • descent through the legitimate male line (child born outside His Majesty’s dominions to a British subject father)…
  • foreign women who married British subject men
  • former British subjects who had lost British subject status on marriage or through a parent’s loss of status could resume it in specific circumstances (e.g. if a woman became widowed, or children upon turning 21).

British subject status was normally lost by:

  • naturalisation in a foreign state, such as the United States of America or France
  • in the case of a woman, upon marriage to a foreign man. Prior to 1933, British subject status was lost even if the woman did not acquire her husband’s nationality.
  • a child of a father who lost British subject status, provided the child also had the father’s new nationality.  [the children follow the status of the father, -that was American law or policy as well]
  • renunciation.

Citizenship by Descent

Prior to 1983, as a general rule, British nationality could be transmitted from only the father, and parents were required to be married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_English_and_British_nationality_law#Early_English_and_British_nationality_law

Citizenship & Foreign-born Presidents

The first Congress of the United States had to correct a deficiency in the Constitution after it was pointed out to them, probably by Thomas Jefferson or by John Adams, or both.  Both of them were at the time of its authoring serving as American Ambassadors in Paris and London, accompanied by they wives and children.

One or both of them may have had a son while serving abroad, and if so, they would have wondered what the Constitution would say about their political nature and eligibility to serve their country.  Would it recognize their right to serve in the legislature of the United States?  Would it recognize their right to serve in the judiciary of the United States?  Would it recognize their right to serve as chief executive of the executive branch?

The answers to the first two questions was clearly answered in the Constitution, but the answer to the third question was missing because it required something more than simple citizenship.  It required natural citizenship by birth but did not make it clear that that which made an American a natural citizen was blood, and not borders.  So the Constitution had a deficiency of silence on that ambiguous issue.

The first Congress knew of this and intended to, and did, correct that deficiency by stating in the clearest language possible that American children were all natural citizens by birth regardless of where that birth took place.  It mandated that children of United States citizens, born beyond our borders, “shall be considered as natural born citizens”.

It did not say that they were to be recognized as simply citizens of the United States because of that there was absolutely no doubt.  Children inherited their father’s nationality whether they were foreigners or Americans.  That was the principle of Natural Law that was a fundamental America State policy.  That was never questioned by anyone.
The question was whether or not everyone would realize that fact then and in the future.  The problem was that some people might not grasp the fact that those born as Americans were Americans by nature, by blood, by inheritance, and not by legal allowance of government.

Those possessed of the misconception that their nationality was dependent on the acquiescence of government would erroneously presume that foreign-born Americans might be some sort of citizen other than what the Constitution required in order to serve one’s country as its top executive.  To prevent such erroneous thinking, it was decided to spell out the fact in explicitly constitutional language by stating that foreign-born Americans were to be recognized as that which they were born being, i.e., natural born citizens.

They were not mentioned in the Naturalization Act of 1790 to assure that they would be recognized as citizens and not aliens.  Rather, they were mentioned solely for the purpose of making it clear to all in the most permanent way they could that American children born of American citizens were all the same; -equally eligible to serve as head of the executive branch and U.S. military.

No one questioned that they were Americans by birth, but some would have muddled and ignorant thinking about the nature and origin of natural national membership, and so it had to be made clear for those people who might have position of authority and who were indoctrinated with the British imperial policy regarding who was born as a subject of the king, that natural born citizens were all persons born of citizens.

They thought that after they inserted that clarification into their Naturalization Act, that the matter would be settled permanently, but a later Congress was ignorant of their purpose for inserting that reference and so they assumed that the correct issue wasn’t presidential eligibility but was simply asserting that foreign-born American children were Americans and not foreigners.

Their assumption was wrong, and their alteration to the first nationality act passed by a Congress composed of many of the founding fathers, completely undid the purpose for mentioning foreign-born American children.  That purpose was solely because of the issue of presidential eligibility and the silence regarding it in the Constitution.

It was a correction of an over-sight, an omission, a deficiency, -not unlike that regarding the Vice-President.  The requirement that he meet the same requirements as the President was not added to the Constitution until it appeared in the 12th Amendment.

The mandate of the 1790 Naturalization Act was not written for the purpose of declaring the very obvious; namely that American fathers always produce American children no matter what the circumstance of their birth.  Everyone already knew that and none questioned it because it is a fundamental principle of Natural Law.

Nationality law is only written to deal with foreigners and their children.  If the father was a foreigner then law was required to make it possible for him and his family to become Americans.

If the mother was a foreigner, then she became an American simply by marrying an American.  If both parents were American then no law was needed in order for them to be that which they were born as.  That is no different than the situation for the parents.  No law was needed and none has ever been written to grant citizenship to those who are born with it by being born as citizens, -as natural members of the group into which they were born.  It came by inheritance, and no group of men has any authority to “give” them that which is theirs by an unalienable right of Natural Law.

~    ~    ~    ~

MichaelN wrote: “the US Congress and Senate changed the second US naturalization act of 1795 so as to exclude children who were born off-shore to US citizens from being considered as natural born citizens, instead declaring them to be “citizens of the United States”.

Everything about that statement is wrong.  First, American sons born abroad were not “excluded from being considered as natural born citizens”.  The language contains not one single little word of exclusion of any sort other than being excluded as being considered foreigners.

The language was about differentiation between those children born as Americans and those born as foreigners needing naturalization.
If you are born as an American then you are born as “a citizen of the United States”.  The presidential eligibility language  was later removed because the author(s) of the revised version didn’t understand why it had been inserted by those who were the founders of the nation and who wanted all natural American sons to be treated equally.  Inequality was unAmerican.

If you had four sons, then became an Ambassador, and your 5th son was born abroad, then you returned home after a few years of serve and fathered four more sons, how is it that the lone 5th son should be rejected from the same right as all of his brothers?  He might be the brightest and most patriotic of all of them and perhaps even a Justice of the Supreme Court, and yet he’s ineligible while an immigrant’s son (born after his father’s naturalization) would be eligible to be President regardless of all of his foreign baggage?

 14th Amendment Citizenship vs Natural Citizenship

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. relates: “that question had nothing to do with defining a “natural born citizen” and all to do with defining a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

A suggestion; instead of making an illogical contradistinction between a “natural born citizen” and “a citizen of the United States”, instead make this distinction: the Supreme Court’s 14th Amendment Wong opinion is not about citizens who are native natural born citizens but about citizens who are native alien-born citizens.
That is the distinction that has always been the focus of the United States government.

It was always about parentage, -not language in the Constitution.  Blood inheritance was everything.  One’s inheritance and heritage was American or it was foreign.  And no one with foreign nationality inheritance and direct foreign heritage was allowed to serve as President.  Their origin had to be American only.  ~  ~  ~

Unknown stated:  “natural-born citizen” means citizen from the moment of birth; thus, just as the Court indicates, upon birth one is either a natural-born citizen or an alien. ~

That is child-like over-simplification.  You’ve made the error of associating natural citizenship with the irrelevant element of TIME.  Timing (at birth) is not connected to that which is determined by natural ORIGIN.

A law could exist declaring all native-born children to be citizens upon their first month or year of life.  What would that criteria (like “upon birth”) have to do with that which is “natural”?  NOTHING! That would be as arbitrary as at/from/upon birth.

Natural is determined by parentage.  One is either born of & into one group or born of & into another group; -American or Foreign.
Natural citizens are born of citizens while 14th Amendment Constitutional citizens are not.  That is why it was written, -to provide the children of non-citizens with citizenship via legal automatic naturalization.  That is why it is known as the Naturalization clause.

The U.S. government Census Bureau labeled native-born children of foreigners “foreign stock”.  Foreign stock cannot be tossed in with “native-stock” (natural born citizens) as if they are the same.  THEY ARE DIFFERENT.  One has American roots, the other has foreign roots.
One is conceived with no right to citizenship whatsoever, while the other is conceived with an unalienable right to citizenship. One enters the world with the gift of citizenship.  The other enters the world with a right so fundamental that no law even exists which “grants” it.  It is an organic, a priori, sui generis right that supersedes the authority given to men to bestow citizenship on those who have no natural right to it.

Mario wrote: “…the one and only description acknowledged, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.”
A. Nash responds:
“A child born to my wife under my roof is my natural born child.”  Question:  What does the location of birth have to do with anything?  Is a child born to my wife in a hospital an alien to me because it was not born under my roof and thus within my jurisdiction?

“A child born to my wife and I under my roof is my natural born child.”

“A child born of American parents in the United States is a natural born citizen.”
The logic behind both statements is identical and equally non-definitive logically, but Mario pontificates that only a child who is born in the country to parents who were its citizens…is a “natural born citizen.”

And where did he find the key word “only”?  In his imagination.  I’ll give him $1,000,000,000 to find one single historical “authority” who ever used that word.

None did because reason and language forbid it.  A nation can not “decide” what “natural” means, nor what “born” means.

There was no “political consensus” about what the specific words “natural born citizen” meant because it was defined not by men but by the English language.  Nothing can change that fact; not new ideas, nor interpretations, nor court citations of philosophical observations.
What those words mean does not rest on an opinion of the supreme court.
Only American parents can produce natural born American citizens like themselves, -not government nor philosophy nor opinions.

How do they do that?  Via life, -not law, via blood, -not borders, via natural inheritance, -not via opinion or soil.

Natural membership is an unalienable right of all off-spring of parents of every human and animal group.  That membership, including citizenship, is not dependent on anything other than who the parents are.  Members?  -or outsiders?
Outsiders have no right to membership and members are indelibly “stained” with what they were born being (insiders).
Their membership was pre-determined at conception.  They are natural family members, not adopted.  They are natural tribal members, not inducted.  They are natural national members, -not naturalized by permission of law.

Unknown wrote:  “There are actually a few who strongly believe that it need be only ONE parent, not TWO.”

Nationality flows from the head of the family to the children.  The father is subject to the full jurisdiction of the national government, -not the mother.  She cannot be drafted and sent to her death in war.

Women, like children, while considered citizens in a civil sense and an international sense, were not considered citizens in a political sense.  They were barred from politics and government offices, -not by law but by entrenched tradition.

But if the father was dead or was unknown, a child born to her would inherit her nationality because she was the head of the family.  In a sense, it would inherit her father’s nationality which is what she inherited.

If Obama’s mother had never married and had never declared the identity of his father, Barry would be considered to be a natural born American through her, -not by law but by nature.
By U.S. law he wouldn’t because it applied to foreign birth and she was a few months too young for that law to apply to her child whom she claimed was actually not foreign born.
Being as she could not prove that, she was never issued a birth certificate for her child, and hence the only thing in the archive is her hand-written perjurous affidavit and the typed version of it.  AN

Unknown wrote: “Article II…is a measure aimed to have the least possible foreign ties bear upon those who might be POTUS.”

That is false.  The least possible foreign ties would be only those whose ancestors came to America on the Mayflower and other such early settlers’ ships.  That would be “the least possible”.
Instead, it was about preventing any direct ties through foreign parents.  That means that parents can be former foreigners who became new natural American citizens via natural-ization.

It would be asinine to claim that naturalized parents have no direct ties to their homeland and yet their sons could become the Commander in Chief & President.

If what you claim and believe were true then no child of a naturalized citizen could be President, but they can.  Why?  By one thing and one thing only; a principle of Natural Law.  If the parents are Americans then the children are Americans also just like them, -natural Americans, -born with their parents’ national membership.
It has been claimed, and not refuted, that back in the beginning of the nation only four States granted automatic naturalization at birth to children of foreign immigrants.  They were their native-born “sons of the soil” as opposed to sons of Americans, i.e., State citizens.
Sons born of aliens were never considered to be natural born Americans and were never considered to be eligible to be President because they were born ineligible, -born subject to a foreign power.

It’s analogy for most of American history was the son of a Catholic.  Catholics were not to be trusted with the office of the President because they were subject first and foremost to the the “Vicar of Christ” -the Pope, and sons born to them were also, just as sons of foreign settlers were still subject to the monarch under whose reign they were born and raised.

No one born subject to a foreign power was ever considered to be a natural citizen of the United States because natural citizens do not have an obligation to their own government as well as to another government.
Citizenship, whether American or foreign, involved inherited obligations to one’s nation.
No one who inherits dual obligations to two nations via parents with different nationalities is a natural citizen of either.  He is a hybrid and his citizenship is double-layered and his  national allegiance is compromised or diluted by direct foreign connections.

No one with direct foreign connections can be entrusted with the position of Command in Chief.  He must be born as an American and nothing else.
Otherwise he is in the same category as naturalized citizens; being American but with foreign baggage.  Only those without baggage are exceptions to the rule that “NO PERSON EXEPT…”.

“No person” includes everyone not born of Americans. THAT is Natural Law.  AN  ~ ~ ~

~About James Madison’s statement emphasizing the influence of soil on allegiance; you need to grasp three important facts: (1) His view as a Representative of Virginia was not a pontification on Natural Law and its principle of natural membership.  It was nothing more than a personal impression of (2) someone who was a Virginian!

The viewpoint of Virginians was British, NOT American.  Virginia had long considered children of immigrants to be colonial subjects and State citizens as “sons of the soil”.

That was not the practice in most of America but it was ingrained in the thinking of Virginians, until, that is, one became President.  Then they learned that no child of an immigrant is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.  They learned that native-birth was irrelevant to natural citizenship, and they changed their tune, as he did when writing as Publius during his presidency regarding national policy about natural citizenship.

Unknown made a leap of false logic with:
“Natural-born citizen must therefore mean citizen upon birth,”.

“Upon” means “at birth”.  No person who is a citizen upon birth is eligible to be President because they are a naturalized citizen thanks to the SCOTUS Wong opinion.

Only those (the 97%) who are citizens by birth are eligible. That means citizens by the Law of Nature and not by human law and its allowance.

Every President in history has been a citizen of the United States with the exception of Barry Obama.

Every President in history has been a natural born citizen of the United States except Chester Arthur and Barry Obama.

Every natural born citizen is a CITIZEN of The United States, but not every Citizen of The United States is a natural born citizen (about 3-4% are not).

Naturalization acts dealt with those who are not citizens of the U.S. -not those who are.  Those who meet the requirements are CITIZENS of THE UNITED STATES, while those who don’t are aliens.

In no act ever written by Congress are American children born outside of the U.S. declared to be foreigners and not American citizens.  Any presumption that any act denoted such an position is illogical, unfounded, and erroneous.

Naturalization acts are not the best place for dealing with the issue of presidential eligibility since they are not about the presidency but about CITIZENSHIP alone.
The language of all naturalization acts, in ordering that all foreign-born American children be recognized as American citizens, contains not a single hint that recognizing them as “CITIZENS of THE UNITED STATES” indicates that they are naturalized children of foreigners (among the 2-3%), nor alien born children of Americans and not natural American citizens via their American parents.

Only foreigners and their children can be natural-ized, -NOT Americans and theirs.
American parents produce American children, -naturally, -by the Law of Nature.

Any and all assertions that being recognized as a CITIZEN of THE UNITED STATES means one cannot therefore be a natural born citizen of the United States is brain dead.  AN
~~~~
mario wrote:
“Publius” (probably James Madison who was President then) on October 7, 1811, commenting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which was the same as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 in the particular at issue) in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure,” stated:

“Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

Publius, in 1811, living when the acts were passed by Congress, would know what Congress intended when it passed the naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802. In that connection, Publius tells us that where a child was born was not controlling when it came to U.S. citizenship. Regardless of where the child was born, if the child’s parents were aliens, the child was alien born. Regardless of where the child was born, the child’s parents had to naturalize in order to make their children citizens.

The historical record tells us that Secretary of State, James Monroe, who was serving the James Madison Administration, eventually declared McClure alien born, but a “Citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, but because a few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States” and McClure was dwelling in the United States at that time. I will take Publius’ and the James Madison’s Administration’s word in 1811 on what the acts meant rather than the Obots’ today.

For more information on the James McClure case, see my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012 .    January 9, 2014

~~~~

The obama eligibility defenders love to quote all sorts of non-authoritative sources but keep themselves blind and deaf to the McClure statement by Publius in 1811.

They cling to State laws like that of Virgina which allowed automatic naturalization for their immigrants’ native-born children, while deliberately trying to remain ignorant of Federal policy regarding citizenship.
It was in conflict with the laws of such States. Guess which one held authority regarding national recognition of citizenship and presidential eligibility?

National policy viewed children of aliens as aliens via their alien father.  When he renounced all allegiance to his foreign monarch and nation (openly naming him), and swore allegiance to the Constitution, he could become an American, and his children through him.

Even if not present in the U.S. at naturalization, his foreign children became citizens upon arrival in America, but only his children born after naturalization were considered natural born U.S. citizens and eligible to be President.
That was because they were born with no direct foreign political roots.  They were naturally Americans because they were born of Americans.  That’s Natural Law. AN

Slartibartfast said…
“The native born children of immigrants are citizens at birth by the 14th Amendment”.
reply:
First; “immigrants”, YES!  Second; NON-immigrants…NO!

As originally conceived, the amendment left both as non-citizens.  But your claim became true following the Wong opinion which itself is the reason that they are citizens, -not the Amendment.  The court changed the original meaning of the Amendment.
The court made them citizens.  By the amendment, they were not citizens.
That is revealed by the conscription act of 1862 which exempted all alien immigrants and their native-born children from the draft for the Civil War.  They were both classified as aliens, -including the native-born sons.  Why?  Because they were subject to a foreign power and had not sworn allegiance to the U.S. Constitution nor renounced their allegiance to their foreign sovereign.  THEY WERE NOT AMERICANS BY FEDERAL POLICY.

A few years later the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was written, followed promptly by the 14th Amendment, -written in the same era and almost by the same Congress.
You and your ilk believe the 14th Amendment reads:  “All persons born in the United States, -within the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen…”  Guess what?  It DOES NOT SAY THAT!

Place of birth is only one of two necessary criteria for citizenship.  The other one is that the father be fully subject to the authority of the national government in the same manner as a citizen is subject.  Immigrants were not so subject when the 14th was written, and only became subject after the Wong opinion.
The interpretation then became that if the child is subject, then the father must be subject also because subjection to the duties of citizenship flows through him.

After that, all alien immigrants and their alien children could be drafted and sent to war.  But non-immigrants (like Barry’s father), could not because they were/are guests of the U.S. government.  Guests are exempt and subjection does no flow through them to their American-birthed children.  That is why Barry is not even a citizen.  The 14th Amendment only applied to children of immigrants, -not to Native Americans (before 1920), guests, whether foreign diplomats,  tourists, students, and every other type of foreign visitor.

Without subjection there is no citizenship.  THAT is the 14th Amendment regardless of the ignorant consensus opinion of the last 115 years.
~~~
Unless an American man was born and raised in one of the few states that allowed “sons of the soil” citizenship, in the mind of the men of that time, aliens were aliens no matter where they were born.

Those other American minds were warped by their State laws and they didn’t grasp the truth about the American nation as a whole and its fundamental historical original policy regarding alien-born children.
THEY WERE ALIENS LIKE THEIR FATHER.  No one owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign could be an American nor be born as an American.

Children were produced from the mold of their father, inheriting his nationality.  And dual nationality was an abomination just like BIGAMY.
Note: Naturalization did NOT involve merely an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.  It also involve the total abject rejection of all foreign authority over one’s life and loyalty.

Children born to men who had not done that were not Americans because they belonged to and were the product of their father, made in his foreign image.
It was also U.S. policy for American children no matter where they were born.  It was ONE policy worldwide for both.  Children were what their father was, whether Foreigner or American.

It is a form of mental blindness to think that foreigners produced foreign children in America but Americans produced foreign children outside of America rather than American children like their father.
THERE WAS ONLY ONE POLICY FOR BOTH!  LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON.

“AND THAT THE CHILDREN OF SUCH PERSONS SO NATURALIZED, BORN OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES BEING UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF SUCH NATURALIZATION, SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,”

Full-Blood Citizens & The Presidency

The Whole Truth about Chiefs, Kings, Koreans & Vampires

Full-Blood Citizenship & The Presidency

    Aside from survival and living in peace, there’s no aspect of the communal life of a natural group more important than that of who its leader is.  Beyond the larger sense of immediate family, he is the center of their world and his decisions may one day make the difference between life and death, -freedom or enslavement for the group.  So choosing him wisely is an important role for all adults who have a say in that choice.

Wanting him to be the best choice possible, they realize that they must always follow the ancient tribal guidelines in making their selection.  But with or without guidelines, they want something about him that is not related to his wisdom or experience.  It is his nature.
Is he one of them?  Was he born of them?  Is he wholly of them and of no other people?  In other words, is he a full-blood member or just a half blood member, -or worse, a no-blood member?  Only full blood members have no distraction of divided loyalty from being half something else.
So even before they weigh whether or not he is wise enough to lead them, they must be certain that they can fully trust him because their lives will be in his hands.

When one is about to testify in open court, one must raise their right hand and swear before God and man that they will tell the truth.  Is that “tell the truth, period”?  Or is there more?  Everyone knows there is more, because one must swear to not just tell the truth, but to tell the whole truth.  Merely telling “the truth” is not good enough because that is not complete.  It could and would be missing something, -something potentially vital and life changing for the person on trial for his or her life.  One’s whole future could be ruined for lack of the full truth.  And so it is also when it comes to leadership and the lack of full loyalty.

A half loyal leader could make choices that would destroy the future of the tribe.  His being of two minds when it comes to where his strongest allegiance lies could redound to the tribes detriment and have dire consequences.  So full loyalty is the first and foremost essential quality that a new leader must possess.

How could assurance be had that he would be fully loyal to the tribe and not half-loyal to a different tribe that one of his parents came from?  The answer is obvious; he must be a full-blood member of the tribe having neither parent from another one.
That is directly related to who would inherit the Throne if a monarch had only two sons and one of them was from his wife the Queen, while another was from a commoner, or worse, a peasant or princess of a competing king’s nation.

The royal ascension would require a full-blood heir, -not a half-blood heir.  That would especially be true if the child was the son of an adulterous wife.  Her  illegitimate child would be completely ineligible to be king unlike that of his majesty the King.

There would, in both cases, be a rule that would need to be followed, and it would be the common sense requirement that he who would lead the nation must be a full-blood member of the group, (the Royal family) and thereby have undivided and unquestionable loyalty to his own people.

The rule, at some point in the tribe’s history, would be written down as the Law of the tribe for all future generations to follow, and the words used to express the rule would be something like these:
1.   No member, except a blood member, shall be eligible to be the Chief.
Or perhaps:
2.  No member, except a native born member, shall be eligible to be the Chief.

Now put on your thinking cap and bore down into the implied nuanced subtle meaning inherent in those two possibilities.  Is one or the other ambiguous?  Or worse, both?

The answer is “both”.   If you can’t figure out why, then you need to think deeper, just as in being a swore witness, what is needed is not just the truth, but the whole truth.
It is not enough, in the first possibility, to be merely a blood member, because that leaves wide-open the possibility of being merely a half-blood member.  That of course would mean that one could possibly have a divided heart that is half loyal to another tribe.  So blood alone is not enough.  It must be Full-blood.

The second possibility also contains a huge ambiguity because being native-born has two meanings.  Does it refer to being born of two native members of the tribe, or being born within the tribe’s territory?  Which would be more important to tribe loyalty?  Would a son of outsiders, though born on tribal land, be more loyal to the tribe than the son of full-blood members who happened to be born outside of the territory, especially when such a son might be the son of a Chief who also was son of a Chief (as would be the case of a child of George W. Bush if born abroad, as during a stint as a foreign ambassador)?

The answer is obvious.  Loyalty does not grow from the soil, nor from boundaries, but from blood connections.  The full-blood son would be acceptable to lead the tribe because his loyalty would be unquestionable, while the son of the outsiders, though “native born” would not because his loyalty would be highly questionable.

Likewise in the situation of monarchs.  When King Solomon of the nation of Israel was visited by the Queen of Sheba, he may have sired a child by her and the possible son that she may have produced would be the king’s half-blood heir.  But when it came time to ascend to the deceased Solomon’s throne, only his full-blood Hebrew son would be allowed.  Being a native-born half-blood Prince would not be good enough to be the nation’s king.

Likewise in the situation of pure-bred canines.  No dog will ever be registered by the American Kennel Association as a pure-bred unless both parents were pure-bred members of their breed.  Crossing a Dalmatian with a Poodle will not produce natural pure-bred puppies of either breed.  It’s all about the parents and their origins.  Is its parentage from within one single breed, or was one parent from another breed?  Only full-blood off-spring are eligible for certification by the association as pure-bred members of a unique breed.

Likewise in the situation of Vampires.  Who is eligible to the throne of the Vampire tribe?  Would a recently bitten, “man-made” new vampire be eligible?  Or would it have to be one who was born a Vampire?
Obviously, it would have to be a born vampire, but again, that term is ambiguous.  Our founding fathers faced that same ambiguity when deciding who would be eligible to be President.  Would a new man-made (naturalized) citizen be allowed?  Or only a born citizen?  Oops, there’s that ambiguity again.

One might be called a born vampire, or a born citizen even if one’s father was not a vampire or a citizen.  If the vampire tribe accepted such children as vampires even though they were only half-vampire, and the American individual states accepted such children as state citizens even though they were half American and half foreign, then you would have an ambiguity of terms.
Being native-born of foreigners (or even foreign-born but very young) and growing up in America would make one an American, as would having a foreign father and American mother and raised in America, but by birth one was only half-American in reality.

Such a description was never used because it might sound biased, so such children would be described as “Americans”, or “citizens at birth” (via either a native-birth location or a citizen parent), or “native-born”, and even “native born Americans”, but never “natural born Americans” because that implies something altogether different.

So throughout much of American history, one could be an American but not necessarily a citizen if born of Native American parents, (Indians) or a Native American father, or of Gypsies. Such children, even though native-born and raised, would not be citizens of the United States because they were not born of American citizens; and some native-born persons, -being born of  foreign government representatives, or foreign tourists, would be neither citizens nor Americans.

To avoid ambiguity, it is necessary to add an additional qualifier to “born vampire” and “born citizen”.  You must make it clear that the king of the vampires must be born a full-blood vampire, and the President of the United States a full-blood citizen.
That sounds quite discriminatory.  Why would that be allowed?  Because of the power of those positions and the negative potential effect that divided loyalty might produce.

So the law of ascension to the Throne, as with eligibility, would have to be clear without any ambiguity, -just as the United States Constitution is clear without any ambiguity:

“No person, except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President,”

Let’s look at the alternate ways that could have been stated, and see if they would convey that same message.

“No Vampire except a blood-born Vampire shall occupy the Throne of the Vampire King.”  Clearly ambiguous, requiring a change:

“No Vampire except a full-blood Vampire shall occupy the Throne of the Vampire King.”

“No American, except one born an American shall occupy the office of the President.”  That would exclude naturalized Americans, but…it would be ambiguous.

Born an American by laws or by nature?  By parents or by legal permission?  By blood or by borders?  To remove the ambiguity requires a change:

“No American, except a full-blood American shall occupy the office of the President.”

That eliminates the possibility of mere native-birth as well as  dual parental nationality.  A full-blood American is not the result of the borders within which one was born, but the parents to whom one was born, -and the word “full” requires that both parents be Americans, -not just one.  So that eliminates all ambiguity.

So that leaves only one question; “Does full-blood mean the same thing as “natural?”  To answer, we must resort to examining things that are not of the legal realm, but are of the natural realm.
“Natural” is not a legal term but is from outside of the closed system of law which exists within the natural realm of the universe as a man-made construct.  But it can’t exist in a total vacuum apart from the greater natural realm in which it was created.  So understanding that, let’s consider the principle of all life and how it provides the answer to the question.

Every form of life reproduces the very same form of life, always and forever.  That is because by the Law of Uniformity, parents of the same species produce off-spring of the same species as well.  The off-spring are the natural product of natural reproduction.  Both parents are blood members of one and only one species, and so their natural off-spring are full-blood members of that species, just like their parents.

That principle is violated as in the cross-breeding of a horse and a donkey.  They, like similar nationalities, are related (like American and British) but they cannot produce a natural member of either group because the off-spring will be a sterile mule.  Mules are not natural because they cannot reproduce since they are not full-blood products of the universal principle of Uniformity.

So also, the product of an American parent and a British parent is not a full-blood American nor a full-blood Brit.  It is a natural member of neither nation because its parentage violates the natural principle of Uniformity.  So such a child could never be qualified to be the American President.

But just such a child did become the American President (Chester Arthur) but only by concealing the truth about his origin.  His British father did not become an American until many years after Chester was born.  So he was not a full-blood American from birth as are 97% of American citizens, which doesn’t include the current President since he is only a half-blood American, and by American law, not even a citizen at all, -although presumed to be one because of his presumed native-birth.
I say “presumed” native birth because he told his publisher and the American people, (through it) and the Kenyan people for around nearly two decades that he was born in Kenya, the land of his ancestors through his father.  So Kenya was supposedly his home for all of those years. which he maintained as his biographical narrative.  Were you to travel in a Time Machine back to 2006, less than a decade ago, you would find a U.S. Senator self-described as being Kenyan at birth.  At that time it meant that he was not a U.S. citizen at birth because his mother was several months too young to permit his American citizenship to pass to her son by law.  So by Obama’s own narrative, he was not even an American citizen by birth.

So that leads to one of two possibilities; either he is an unconscionable liar and will say anything that makes him appear more appealing story-wise, including being born in a far-off foreign land even though that is a flat out lie, or it is actually the truth and a birth certificate exists for him in Kenya, -one which they will not allow access to.

Since all records are non-existent or sealed regarding his life, all one has to go on is his two counterfeit digital birth document images and his counterfeit Selective Service registration card.  But now there is a new one besides those.  It is a registration in the British Archives of a son born in Kenya to to Barack Obama (Sr.) in 1961 but under the handwritten spelling of “Burack or Biraq Obama”.

The presence of two possible spellings must mean that the information was convey verbally and taken down informally by hand and not typewriter.  That means that those spellings are not the definite spellings of the name of another individual with a similar sounding name, because there being two possibilities indicates that there is nothing certain about the spelling of the name, only how it sounds.

So where he was born is a total mystery, perhaps even to him, but that would be highly unlikely since his mother would have no reason to keep such a thing secret from him.  But that information is the secret that he does not want the nation to know because it would reveal something that would make him clearly ineligible to serve as President.

Another comparison to citizens with a dual background and uncertain motives would be that of a hypothetical birth on top of the border inside the DMZ between North and South Korea.  The child, born of a South Korean mother and a North Korean father, would definitely be Korean by nature, just as would a similar child born on the border between the United States and the Confederate States of American be American.  But to which nation would the child belong?

Just because the question can be asked does not mean that it can also be answered, or that there is any logical answer.  It can’t be answered because the situation, a very real though highly unlikely possibility, would be a totally unnatural situation since there is no analogy to it in the natural world.

How is the South Korean Constitution written regarding the eligibility of the President?  Would it be enough to simply require that the President be Korean and not foreign?  That would not bar the possibility of a North Korean serving, -nor one born to a South Korean mother and a North Korean Father and raised in North Korean.  Such a possibility would not be acceptable under any circumstance.  So a more specific requirement would have to be written.

So how about the requirement that the President must be a native-born South Korean?  How would that preclude a son of North Koreans which was born in a more modern South Korean hospital from being a native-born candidate?  It wouldn’t, and so a more stringent requirement would have to be crafted.

How about if it said that no Korean except a South Korean shall be eligible?  That would work unless South Korea had the same kind of citizenship law as the U.S., -law which allows foreigners to become naturalized citizens, -law by which the native-born son of the foreign North Koreans would be considered to be a citizen based solely on where it was born.  With such law controlling citizenship, a son of North Koreans could be the President of South Korea.  Again, unacceptable.

Or similarly, if the South Korean law allowed children of mixed parentage to be accepted as citizens, including a North Korean father married to a South Korean mother, how would that prevent the child from being eligible to be the ROK President?  The child would be considered to be a South Korean by such law, and so limiting the presidency to only South Koreans would not have the intended effect that was sought.

So how could they prevent and exclude naturalized foreigners and native-born North Koreans, (including half-blood North Koreans) from being the leader of South Korea?

They would have to utilize wording that referred solely to those who were neither.

They would have to require that the President be no one except one born of South Korean parents, -a born South Korean, but more; -a natural South Korean and not simply one born in South Korea to parents of any nationality.
The  off-spring of foreigners (North Koreans) would not be natural South Koreans because they would have no attachment to South Korea even though allowed to deliver their child in a South Korean hospital.  But all of the off-spring of South Korean parents would be the natural citizens of the nation, and therefore would be trustworthy to hold the office of the President.

If Barack Obama had been born of a North Korean General, -an authoritarian anti-American supporter of North Korean supremacy who also raised him, would Barack Obama be seen in the same light?

Would not the “alienage” of his paternal background be viewed in the way that the Founding Fathers viewed British paternity?
How would that not make an enormous difference in everyone’s mind?  How would anyone suppose that he could fit the label of “natural born citizen?”  What would be natural about such a father versus being a natural American child of only American citizens?

Another comparison to citizens with a dual background and uncertain motives is that of the person one might get to know through a match-making service, the person who presents him or herself in a carefree unscarred way but who in fact has hidden excess baggage.
It can’t be seen and isn’t revealed until some event triggers its revelation.  Only then does the truth come out that there is much more to this person than was  presented, -things that were hidden in order to win another’s affection.

In the case of the Democratic Party’s candidate for President, the hidden excess baggage was a strong affinity for the religion of Islam, and its “holy ground” of Saudi Arabia, along with its king, besides a lack of respect for the gospel of Christ and Christianity in general, -plus an affinity for Socialism and gigantic government, and the Social Gospel of Collective Salvation through collective good deeds (by Government) required of the citizenry through their taxes.

That was a whole lot of excess baggage that his similarly-minded three-monkeys media didn’t permit their spotlights to shine on.  And so he successfully portrayed himself as something that he was not. -namely a centrist Democrat in the same mold as Bill Clinton.

My final analogy is the Coffee analogy.  The CEO of a gigantic corporation hires a new secretary and informs her that he takes coffee in the morning, and only coffee, -not juice (i.e., no foreigners).  She understands,…or thinks she does, until the next moring she realizes that she has no clue as to what kind of coffee he takes.

Or maybe she’s a person who also drinks coffee in the morning and only considers coffee with cream and sugar as ingestible.  So maybe she prepares him just such a cup and brings it to him.  Without looking he picks it while reading something and takes a drink, only to spit it back into the cup.
What’s this crap? he asks.
“It’s your coffee, like you asked.”
“I didn’t ask for this!”

Clearly, what you have here is a failure to communicate.  That is due to ambiguity.  Coffee can come in different forms; from sweetened and creamed (including with artificial sweetener and  artificial creamer) to the straight full-on unadulterated black fresh ground & brewed stuff.
Citizenship also comes in similar varieties, -from that of one of the Boston bombers, to that of sons and daughters of the Mayflower, or of the later American Revolution.

But in the eyes of the government, there is only one type of citizenship.  All types of citizenship are deemed to be the citizenship of the natives of the nation by a fiction of law.  That way there is no bias and discrimination.  That’s a fundamental principle of American philosophy and law.  All citizens are equal, -equal to natural citizens because by that fiction they become natural citizens.

But that legal fiction generalization was not an adequate safe-guard against unrevealed foreign attachment in the heart of a European-fathered American citizen who might be elected to the highest and most powerful office in the land though secretly loyal to a foreign monarch.  And so they qualified their description of what kind of citizen the President must be.  He must be more than simply a born citizen or simply a natural citizen by a fiction of law.  He must be both a born citizen and a natural citizen.  He must be a born natural citizen.  He must be in the words of the Constitution; “a natural born citizen”.

A natural born citizen is akin to a natural born slave but on the opposite side of the coin.  Did you know that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, (a twin of the U.S. Constitution) banned the import of slaves?  That ended the transoceanic slave trade.  That meant that no more slaves would be coming to America.

That meant that the continuance of the slave trade was wholly dependent on the production of slave children who were not born free (in Africa nor America) since their parents were property and thus their children were property also since they were what their parents were.

That reveals the view of all that children inherited that status of the parents, which usually meant the father, since he was head of the family.  That meant that the children of slave fathers and mothers were natural born slaves.  Natural born slaves are not half-slave and half-free (like half American and half foreigner).  They were 100% full-blood born slaves, just as children of Americans are 100% full-blood citizens, meaning they are born as citizens by nature, -by the nature of their parents, -whether born on the plantation (inside U.S. borders) or outside the plantation.  Regardless of where born, they are what they are by birth, and not by borders.

by Adrien Nash  May 2013  http://obama–nation.com

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers