You Are Not A Legal American!

If you ask American citizens what it is that makes them an American, they may not know how to answer. They may incorrectly answer that it’s because they were born in America, but that would be wrong, -unless they were born to U.S. immigrants. In that case they would be correct because the 14th Amendment declares them to be American citizens.
But if your parents were not immigrants, then what is the source of your American citizenship? By what law, or constitutional amendment, or clause in the Constitution, or Attorney General Interpretation, or State Department policy are you an American?

No one will be able to answer you even if they are a lawyer, or a judge, or a professor of law. The reason they will have no answer is because there is no answer. They may not even realize that fact consciously.
But they will be aware that they’ve never heard of any such law.  So if you are not an immigrant, nor born to a foreign father or mother, but are simply an average American, born to American parents, then there is no law that you can point to that makes you an American citizen.

There’s a pronouncement in the 14th Amendment which declares that any person who fits the criteria of being native-born and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen, but its declaration only applies to one group so described but not the other.   One group is those born in America to foreigners, while the other is those born in America to Americans.  The former obtain citizenship via the permission of the amendment but the latter do not.  Rather, they are born with it, -with or without the amendment.  They are not dependent on it nor any other grant or permission, and in fact none even exists.
The reason there’s no such law is because no authority was given by the founding fathers to pass any law impacting, regulating, or bestowing the citizenship of natural natives of the United States.
They gave authority to Congress to pass a “uniform law of naturalization” dealing with foreigners and their children, but not to pass laws regarding natural citizens of the United States.
Just as the First Amendment specifically forbids Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion or anything that infringes on religion and the press, so Congress was similarly unauthorized to legislate or regulate the citizenship of the American people who are the nation’s natural members. Since that authority was not given in the Constitution, nor in the 14th Amendment, it does not exist.

That leaves the matter of natural citizenship as something that only exists in the realm of natural law, -outside of government, beyond the right of men to legislate, beneath the foundation on which the government is built. It exists as an immutable principle derived from natural law and the unalienable rights bestowed by Nature’s God to his creation.

So while foreigners who are naturalized, and children born to immigrants can point to specific statements in U.S. law, whether it be the naturalizing power of the 14th  Amendment, or Supreme Court rulings, or federal statutes, natural citizens can point to nothing in any law ever passed.
While government and its laws exist as the result of the agreement of a people to establish a civil order and structure to enforce the rules that will provide them a framework in which tranquility and prosperity will be possible thanks to the protection of the natural rights of every individual, that government does not exist as a natural construct but instead, as a man-made one.

Since natural membership is a natural right and is not granted by a man-made construct of human authority, it exists with or without that construct, and thus those who created the construct for Americans were conscious of that fact when they created it, -realizing that they could not codify that which is beyond human authority because that would create the false impression that it’s something within the purview of human authority, when in fact, it, -like natural family membership, is beyond human authority to regulate or alter.

Instead, it is those who with natural membership in a group who possess the authority to regulate and alter their government. Any form of government that violates the natural order of things is a dictatorship and sits as a little Satan ruling over other human beings as if they are its property.

The American citizens who can trace their citizenship to something that is the product of government exercising its authority can be described as “legal” citizens. Anyone who is a natural citizen is not among them because their citizenship is not derived from government, and so they could be described as not being “legal” citizens but natural citizens   It was their civic forefathers that created the system that determines what is legal and what is not, -who is legal and who is not, -who obtains permission to be a U.S. citizen and who does not.

No one can be a determiner of the legality of natural national members because such members were the creators of the system that does the determining. The creation cannot determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of its creator within the creator’s own system.
So most Americans, perhaps 96 %+ of us, can say that in that sense, we are not “legal” citizens since no legal authority exists that makes us what we already are and were born as, namely, what the Constitution calls “natural born citizens”.

By simply being what we are, we are qualified to run for the office of President (if we’re 35 years of age and have lived in the United States for 14 years), but the +/- 3-4 % of us who aren’t natural Americans are not eligible to be President.  That’s due to the immutable requirement of the U.S. Constitution, but no one pays any attention to it anymore.  In fact it was ignored completely when the American electorate voted for an ineligible citizen by the name of Barack (Bair’-ak) Obama and then in rapture watched him be unconstitutionally sworn into office.   Oh well,  the Constitution is only a piece of paper.  And it’s no longer the law of the land anyway.  That is now whatever Congress decides, or whatever the autocrat in the oval office decides.  That’s the new normal.  I hope you can adjust to it, along with the straitjacket that’s being prepared for you.

by a.r. nash  feb. 2012    http://obama–
The white House counterfeit  birth certificate


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

9 Responses to You Are Not A Legal American!

  1. How about Title 8, Section 1401 of the US code, which defines US citizens at birth? I guess you forgot about that one.

    Reply: No, I didn’t. In order for you to grasp what you read, you need to re-read it. You completely missed the meaning of “So if you are not an immigrant, nor born to a foreign father or mother, but are simply an average American, born to American parents, then there is no law that you can point to that makes you an American citizen.”

    Natural citizens are not made to be citizens via anything other than the natural law of membership. They are citizens by nature, not by law. They are Americans naturally and require no permission of the government to be that which they are born as.

    Section 1401 does two things. It describes, using 14th Amendment language, domestically born citizens. They come in two types; those born to Americans and those born to foreigners. The children of foreigners are made into Americans via its naturalizing authority thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wong Kim Ark, -not thanks to Congress or the American people who considered them to be subject solely to their foreign father’s government through him. But the court changed the meaning of the amendment from something written principally for freed slaves.

    But even though the amendment makes such children citizens, it does not make the children of Americans citizens because they are citizens without it. All of the other variations of 1401 deal with children with a foreign parent but ones that are NOT born in the United States. Since Obama was not made a citizen via his father who was not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and he was not born abroad (supposedly) therefore no law exists by which he was born with U.S. citizenship. There is no statute for a child born in the U.S. to a foreign parent who is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. And American women have never been subject to the fullest jurisdiction required of citizens, which is service in national defense in a combat role.

  2. Starbeau says:

    Mr. Nash,
    I am very concerned that when Obama’s eligibililty comes before any Federal Court, regardless of the level of the court, that the Judge(s) do not understand what you have clearly written above and in many other articles on the subject.

    I for one, and I believe many, many others are not going to accept the straight jacket.

    • Starbeau:

      The problem is not that Judges do not understand the law, but rather that people like you and arnash do not, and yet think you do.

      The really pathetic thing about it is that birthers like you and he disagree with every judge, Constitutional expert, the entire Congress of the United States, the Congressional Library research service, and over 200 years of jurisprudence, and yet you untrained amateurs think you somehow know better than all of them combined.

      After all that, 152 failed court actions with ZERO success, and four straight yeas of abject and consistent failure, any sane person would be re-examining their own conclusions with the thought that they might… just… be… wrong. However birthers never seem to manage to do just that.

      The simple fact is that you are wrong, whether you can allow yourself to accept it or not. Your abjewct hatred for this one particular president over all others in the past is simply not tenable. You will not be allowed to change the Constitution to suit your prejudice, nor will your sedition ever change reality.

      • arnash says:

        I’ve managed to discover and explain many significant things. There are no logical counters to the points that I’ve made and the conclusions that result from them. Hence the absence of any counter-argument and the proffering of juvenile statements such as “The simple fact is that you are wrong,”. If that statement was the lead and intro to an elucidation of reasons countering what I’ve written, then it would be a legitimate introductory statement. But as always, it was followed by nothing. Just a vacant unexplained absence of any logical counter-argument. Instead you’ve resorted to exalting the infallibility of authoritative human assumptions.

        You are failing to grasp the reality of institutionalized error. Once an error becomes institutionalized it is almost impossible for anyone to imagine that it could be an error. Everyone assumes that the knowledgeable experts that preceded them were infallible authorities who learned from infallible authorities that preceded them, -and on and on back into the obscure past. If one dares to point out the error they are deemed to be a traitor to the establishment and its presumed legitimacy which is based on its infallibility. But humans make mistakes and when important men make mistakes their errors become institutionalized, and then everyone else assumes that that which is incorrect is actually true.

        I suggest that you open your mind to what is known about the human mind, and read more of what I’ve written about the origin of the errors that are held to be infallible truth by the legal establishment. (And read what is found below -copied from Wikipedia.) I’ve gone back into the past and explained the sources of the errors that became enshrined as infallible legal doctrine without anyone’s attempt to figure out why. All legal reasoning in the end must be based on principles but when it comes to defining natural citizenship there is only one principle, and that is the principle of natural membership. It applies to all life forms that are social in nature, including humans, whether related as clans or tribes or nations.

        Cognitive Bias: From Wikipedia
        For an article about the conceptual problems of the mind see Cognitive closure (philosophy).

        A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment that occurs in particular situations, leading to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[1][2][3] Implicit in the concept of a “pattern of deviation” is a standard of comparison with what is normatively expected; this may be the judgment of people outside those particular situations, or may be a set of independently verifiable facts. A continually evolving list of cognitive biases has been identified over the last six decades of research on human judgment and decision-making in cognitive science, social psychology, and behavioral economics.

        Cognitive biases are instances of evolved mental behavior. Some are presumably adaptive, for example, because they lead to more effective actions in given contexts or enable faster decisions when faster decisions are of greater value (heuristics). Others presumably result from a lack of appropriate mental mechanisms (bounded rationality), or simply from mental noise and distortions.

        Bias arises from various processes that are sometimes difficult to distinguish. These include information-processing shortcuts (heuristics),[4] mental noise and the mind’s limited information processing capacity,[5] emotional and moral motivations,[6] or social influence.[7]
        [H]uman judgments and decisions differ from rational choice theory. The differences [are] explained in terms of heuristics, -rules which are simple for the brain to compute but introduce systematic errors.[8]

        Types of cognitive biases

        Biases can be distinguished on a number of dimensions. For example, there are biases specific to groups (such as the risky shift) as well as biases at the individual level.

        Some biases affect decision-making, where the desirability of options has to be considered (e.g., Sunk Cost fallacy).
        Some biases reflect a subject’s motivation,[13] for example, the desire for a positive self-image leading to Egocentric bias[14] and the avoidance of unpleasant cognitive dissonance. Other biases are due to the particular way the brain perceives, forms memories and makes judgments. This distinction is sometimes described as “Hot cognition” versus “Cold Cognition”, as motivated reasoning can involve a state of arousal.

        The following is an abbreviated list of the more commonly studied cognitive biases:
        For other noted biases, see List of cognitive biases.
        Framing by using a too-narrow approach and description of the situation or issue.
        Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions; this is related to the concept of cognitive dissonance.
        Self-serving bias is the tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests.
        Belief bias is when one’s evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by their belief in the truth or falsity of the conclusion.

  3. Well…you’ve certainly done a lot of writing here, and apparently some thinking, but you have come to the wrong conclusion. People born on US soil _are_ _the_ definition of natural-born citizens.

    and its’ “straitjacket”, not “straight jacket”.

  4. pacifistgunslinger says:

    That would be strait jacket, not straight jacket. In any case, your argument seems in total opposition to your conclusion.

    • arnash says:

      Thanks for the spelling correction. As for your impression, when one perceives something that is totally illogical, it’s best to questions one’s own perception and the thought process that resulted in it. Somewhere in the reading a misunderstanding crept in imperceptibly, so instead of assuming that a ridiculous contradiction was scribed, one should re-think and re-read in order to find the spot where one left the tracks. We humans don’t tend to give the opponent the benefit of the doubt and instead just jump to the conclusion that they must be wrong or stupid and we are right and clearly understanding what was said or written, when that is just as likely to not be the case.

  5. Birther Headlines says:

    This is a great poll: Who will file the first general election challenge to President Obama’s candidacy?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: