Why No Visa-card Alien’s Child Can Be President

or How Foreign Women Prove Obama Is Not An American Citizen

Do you believe that you understand what citizenship is? You probably do. But do you understand what the nature of American citizenship is? You definitely do not.
It is knowledge that has been entirely lost, and can’t be found in anything written in the last century. Even worse, it can hardly be found in anything written in the century before. But it is easily regained and understood simply by connecting dissimilar facts which together create a puzzle picture which reveals the truth. Let’s exam the picture that emerges when those pieces are assembled together.

For two centuries, American women, like indentured servants, were not citizens of the colonies nor the states nor the nation.
Whenever the subject of citizenship might have been raised in mixed American company, no man would have said so but they all would have thought that their womenfolk were not really citizens. They would not have said so because they felt the need to be polite, diplomatic, and avoid the ire of womenfolk whose good graces they desired to be in.

What man who desired his his mother’s approval, or his wife’s good cooking, obedience, and good sex would have uttered the truth in front of her; “women aren’t really citizens at all; they’re merely American subjects.”?
That’s the reality of the situation that couldn’t be spoken. It reminds me of something Greg Guttfeld said about marriage. He said that no one has ever written an honest book about what marriage actually turns out to be and is like by comparison to the notions in single people’s head before they’ve ever been married, -and… that no one ever will have the audacity to write one.

So there it is; the citizenship of American women, as well as children, was strictly a pretense of politeness maintained so as to not ruffle their feathers by making them seem unequal to men.
American principles rejected the existence of more than one class of citizens because they rejected one class being superior over others, and the rest being inferior -as was not the case in Europe with its despicable noble and aristocrat classes.
That fundamental American fact tells you that the women of America were not a lesser class of CITIZEN but were not actually citizens at all.
They were not inferior nor second-class because they were not in the class described by the title “CITIZEN”.
They were in a protected and subservient class apart from citizens, -leaving only the label “American National” to accurately and respectfully describe them.
The inhabitants of Puerto Rico and Guam, -as well as Native Americans, were once American Nationals. That status did not give them the rights of citizenship but gave them membership in the nation.
Now they, like women, are citizens also, but American Samoans and Virgin Islanders are not, -as is stated on their passports. They are American Nationals only.
That historical reality sheds strong indirect light on the very nature of citizenship itself. The direct light is that shed on citizenship via naturalization.
Only when you understand the reality of the mind-set of the past will you understand the truth about naturalization. It is this; since in reality, American women were not real American citizens, foreign women could not be American citizens either, -meaning they could not volunteer for the process of naturalization because it was restricted solely to those who could become CITIZENS, -not merely American nationals, -and only men could become citizens. Consequently only European men could submit to naturalization.

What did and does naturalization still require? Besides the renunciation of all foreign allegiance, it requires that one solemnly swear to BEAR ARMS, to BEAR TRUE FAITH & ALLEGIANCE to America and her Constitution.
How does one “bear true faith” towards a country? Only one way; by being true to the orders that one is given, -showing that true faith to one’s allegiance by showing full obedience in battle as the bullets are ripping into one’s companions and fellow CITIZENS (all of whom are male only). That is the obedience that is requisite to citizenship.

That oath is a living reminder of what naturalization actually entailed. In today’s bastardized devolved version of the system of the past, foreign women ridiculously swear to the very same thing by the very same words, with the words now meaning absolutely nothing.
If they actually meant something in any way, then one would have to assert that the United States government asserts the right to conscript women into the combat forces and to send them into battle.

Is there any man alive who is willing to make that assertion on behalf of Congress? Could anyone elected to Congress ever even think about making such subjection of women national law?
That will never happen because it is unthinkable even if the nation “allows” strong, aggressive and ambitious women to serve as combat or medic soldiers and Marines. They will never be made subject to that authority involuntarily because the men of the nation are the guardians of the women and children of the nation. Women are the protected class, not members of the protector class.

So foreign men were the only Europeans who underwent the naturalization process, and through them, as heads of their family unit, their wives and children became Americans automatically; -not by authorization of law, but by operation of American principles, one of which was that nationality was attached and flowed through the family head, the father, unless he were dead.

If the head became something new, then those under him became the same thing because they were of him and by him and possessed the same family blood as one living cohesive unit. Law was not needed to make that so because that was basic American Natural Law philosophy and attitude. But lawmakers felt obligated for the sake of openly protecting those who were not directly naturalized to state on the record that natural fact, -that those attached to him, his children, were also Americans, -although they did fail to include mention of the foreigner’s wife.

Divorce was allowed in America under Biblical law although it was rarely allowed in Britain under the National Anglican Church. Perhaps if a naturalized foreigner’s wife committed adultery, she could not only lose her husband and children, but also her right to be considered an American.

It no doubt was so because her only proof of being an American was through her husband, -by showing her marriage certificate and his naturalization certificate, connecting herself to him and his new citizenship procured her her membership in the American nation. Without those documents, she became a foreigner once again.

But how would that have actually changed anything about her life being lived in America? It would have changed nothing because her fellow American women had no citizenship rights either. They all were subject to the status quo of the patriarchal male-dominated society, -like subjects and not CITIZENS.  In fact you could label them as American subjects, like the Native Americans were a sort of subject, in a way, but not the real common law way because they were not subject to the full sovereign authority of the American government since they retained their own sovereignty.

Their relationship was described as “unknown to the common law”. But the relationship of women was known to the common law since it was one of subjection to the authority of the head of the family, -her father or her husband.
But like American women, like American Indians, like migrant Canadians & Frenchmen, and like American Negroes, foreign women were not subject to the requirement and natural duty of CITIZENSHIP which included the obligation to bear arms for the nation with true faith, and allegiance in battle if ordered.

There was, and is, two other classes of people who also are exempt from that obligation, and they are all foreign ambassadors & representatives, and all foreign guests of the U.S. government.  They cannot be drafted into the American military because they are not subject to American authority over its own. Since 1898 and a Supreme Court opinion in the case of Wong Kim Ark, “its own” includes not only its citizens but also its domiciled immigrants who’ve joined themselves to American society and are under American laws and protection.

Such foreign men, even though not naturalized into citizenship, are subject to the full requirement of the male duty to defend one’s own country even though it is not the nation of one’s subjectship or citizenship. But being as it is in reality one’s actual home, one has an actual duty to defend it.

That was not the view before that court opinion, -the one that declared that by the 14th Amendment, children of immigrants are born with American citizenship. Before that opinion, there was no settled national rule that anyone could point to that determined whether or not alien-born children were citizens of the nation, even though they were accepted as citizens within and by some of the individual states.

So today, foreign men and their foreign-born sons can be drafted, and thus are required to register with the Selective Service System between 18 and 25 even though they are not Americans.
That is because they are Americans in the sense that they are members of American society, even though not citizens, just as American women were also members of their own society but were not citizens in any real sense.

Another group are also not Americans in any real sense and they are foreign guests. They are those visiting America or serving their government in America on a temporary basis. Such foreign guests bear a Visa Card or diplomatic credentials while foreign immigrants bear a Green Card and are permanent-resident members of the country without being citizens.

A Visa-bearing foreign man might produce a child while within American borders but through the child’s head, its father, it is not subject to the duty that he is not subject to either, which is American military service. His child is exempt because it is subject to its father’s nation, -the one where he lives and has his home. He belongs for his father’s society and may be raised there as soon as his visit to America ends.

Such a foreign father was one Barack Obama from Kenya; foreign student. He fathered a son who was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948 but who was not subject to American sovereign authority over American citizens and immigrants.
Neither the father nor the son at birth were under any obligation to serve a nation that was not theirs and was not their home. In time the son became obligated because Kenya did not become his home, -Hawaii did and it was an American state when he was born.

Did he register with Selective Service at 18 years of age? No, he did not. He did not feel obligated to do so since he was only partly American, -but also Kenyan, and Indonesian by adoption.

But when he was born, by the 14th Amendment and its true meaning of what being subject to the United States was when the amendment was written, -or even by what it meant under the illegitimate expansion of its meaning to include immigrants by the Supreme Court in 1898, Barack Jr. was not born possessing 14th Amendment citizenship because his father was not an American nor an immigrant but merely a foreign guest.

And as far as anyone knows, his status has never changed, although he may have gone through the naturalization process, -unbeknown to everyone since it would remove all ignorant doubt that he was not born as an American citizen, and as such could not possibly be considered to be a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires of all Presidents and Vice-Presidents.

Why No Visa-card Alien’s Child Can Be President  pdf 3 page

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com

Membership by Right vs Citizenship by Law

Membership by Right vs Citizenship by Law  pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com

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:


[“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.”]


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.


American Foreigners & Native-born Aliens

The understanding of the American people, whether average citizen or Supreme Court Justice, is very limited regarding the subject of citizenship.  We are raised under concepts that have no connection to actual reality.  We have concepts that denote facts that in fact are merely connotations which are incorrect.  We think we understand the meaning of words like immigrant and alien, native and foreigner but what we understand is only a piece of a larger puzzle that we can’t see because the perspective of our understanding is too narrow.  What we think we know makes perfect sense to us, but like the Matrix, we don’t comprehend the big picture.

We think that certain ideas are mutually exclusive and oxymoronic, including “native-born alien”, while others may be completely ambiguous, and undefinable, like: “American foreigner” (explained below) but they reflect very real-world truths.
The government has coined a new term (U.S. persons) to refer to everyone present in the United States.  That is an easily understandable concept, but the persons that constitute it are not so readily comprehended because of the complexity of real life.  In the real world we have those who are not of us but are of another nation and culture and history and perhaps language, and many of them are not among us legally, and hence are unavoidable labeled as illegal aliens.

Those who wish to abolish the use of that term would also love to abolish the use of the term “alien” and have open borders to all who are willing to make the effort to cross our borders without permission.  But the term “illegal alien” is necessary for the rule of law because it is in contradistinction to “legal aliens” who are here with the permission of the American government.
So we see three delineations: Aliens, meaning non-citizens of the United States, legal aliens, and illegal aliens.  The differentiation does not stop there since we also have foreign-born aliens and native-born aliens.  They are in contradistinction to foreign-born Americans and native-born Americans.
What makes the determination as to who is a natural American and who is a natural alien is not a geographical determinant but a biological determinant.  American parents produce American children by Natural Law, -just as citizens of other nations do similarly with their children whose membership in their parents’ nation is membership that is inherited via natural transmission of the parents’ political nature to their off-spring.
If the parents are of different nations, and thus are the rare exception to the almost universal rule that people who meet & marry do so as members of the same society and nation, then their children will not be natural members of either society because their origin is unnatural, -being bifurcated and thus dual instead of uniform and singular.  Their political nature is that of a hybrid, and no hybrid is natural.

So, one might think that no foreigner could be a natural American citizen, but that assumption does not take into account Americans who are also foreigners.  It is a mistake to assume that all foreigners are non-US citizens, and that all aliens are foreign-born, because both are false.  That is seen by looking at the big picture (which is never done except when almost compelled to do so).
Some foreigners are foreign-born-&-raised Americans who by Natural Law are natural members of the group that their parents belong to, i.e., the United States of America.  American parentage produces American children everywhere on Earth because by Natural Law the off-spring are formed in the image of the parents, -chips off the old block, -like father, like son.  Such foreign-born and raised American children may one day emigrate to their political homeland and doing so makes them American-citizen  immigrants or American foreigners.
Thus we have “American-citizen immigrants”, “foreign legal immigrants” aka: “legal aliens”, (non-citizens), and “foreign illegal immigrants, aka: “illegal aliens”.
But what few people realize is that not all aliens are immigrants.  Some are born within U.S. territory.  They are the native-born aliens.  They are the alien-born whose parents are (1) illegal immigrants or (2) non-immigrants.

Native-birth and American citizenship are only connected by the bridge of the Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the case of Wong Kim Ark in 1898.  Prior to that opinion, bridges existed in a few States but not in most, nor in Federal policy.  With that being the situation, the situation was somewhat confused and unsettled until the high court settled it based on the words of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

That citizenship clause was written to overtly provide citizenship for freed slaves who until then were not citizens of any nation, and it was covertly anticipated that one day it would be ruled to apply also to native-born children of immigrants on the national level.  Thirty years later the high court made that dreamed-of day reality via its holding that Mr. Wong was an American citizen regardless of having alien parents because he was born in the United States to immigrants “permanently” domiciled here.

So native-born children of immigrants are alien-born Americans.  They are in contradistinction to the 97% of Americans who are citizen-born Americans, and thus eligible to serve as President.  But what about children of “non-immigrant aliens” (as they are designated by the U.S. government)?  Are they also eligible to serve as President?
The question is nearly brain-dead because the real question is: by what law, amendment, court opinion, or natural law are they even citizens?
It first must be established that they are citizens before the question of presidential eligibility can even be raised.
That question cannot be answered in the positive by any of the means mentioned, but there is one that was not mentioned, -and it is: federal policy.  While the court ruled that children of immigrants are born with automatic citizenship (naturalized at birth), it did not rule that children of non-immigrants are also U.S. citizens.

Such a legal right cannot be found anywhere in U.S. law, but nevertheless, it is almost bedrock federal policy, -existing as an institutionalized error since 1898 when the Attorney General at the time (John Griggs) chose to make it so of his own volition.
That was a leap of unfounded interpretation that logically and legally was “a bridge too far”.  But it followed the bridge too far taken by the high court which ignored the fact that since the founding of the nation, children of aliens were always aliens from the stand-point of the national government, and most State constitutions as well, and that was due to one inescapable fact: They were subject to a father who was subject to a foreign government or dictatorship, and thus, through him, they were not naturally subject to the American government.
From the standpoint of the United States government, no one who was subject to a foreign government, such as U.S.-born British subjects, could be considered to be an American because they already had a nationality, and dual-nationality was not permitted.  One could not have two nationalities anymore than one could have too wives.  Political bigamy was unthinkable since it involved split, divided, polygamous allegiance and obligations of citizenship to two possibly warring nations.
A third bridge-too-far was also crossed with the false concept that not only can the US-born son of a loyal British subject be an American citizen, but he could also be the President and Commander in Chief of the United States military simply by having exited the womb within U.S. borders.
Only a fool of a cosmic proportion would conceive that the founding fathers would allow such a dangerous and feared eventuality.   What they actually required of the President is stark evidence that they did not allow such a thing except within their own generation, among those alien-born Americans that they knew and had seen tested and proven through a long and costly war.
Those so born, who had sworn allegiance to their State and renounced all loyalty to the government of their homeland, were allowed to seek the presidency if they had become naturalized American citizens before the adoption of the Constitution.  Those who became citizens after that were barred in perpetuity.  From then on: “No person, except a natural born citizen (or a citizen of the United States before the adoption of this Constitution) shall be eligible to the office of the President,”.  Article II, Section I., U.S. Constitution

by Adrien Nash  Jan. 2014.

PS.  Unknown wrote regarding the Naturalization Act of 1790: “There was no need to address the case of children born within the jurisdiction of the States.”
While true, that statement misses the point, which is that Congress possessed no authority to address the case of natural born citizens since their national membership was before, beyond, beneath, and above the authority of Congress, -whose only authority was to make a uniform rule for the States to apply in their naturalization law and policy.
Naturalization only applies to foreigners, -not Americans, so the only legislative authority they possessed was in regard to the citizenship of those born without it and with no natural right to it.
Geographical coordinates do no supply one with an inherent unalienable right of membership in their parents national group.  Only parentage is the source of that natural right, -not government permission.
If a law applies to one’s citizenship then one is a legal citizen and not a natural citizen.  No law applies to natural citizens and no legal citizen is eligible to be President because they were born of an alien father.  It was for them that naturalization laws were written.  If both parents were American then no law was needed in order for them to be that which they were born as.   That was the status quo of 1788 and far beyond.

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 unalienable natural right.  Their national membership is natural membership, -the result of the way that life in the universe is wired.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers