National Membership & Natural Responsibility

In the beginning was the principle, and the principle was supreme and unchanging, and so it has remained, -everlasting and immutable.  It exists and persists as an inextricable primary element of the fabric of all life.  As it was in the beginning, so it is to this day.

It cannot be altered, suspended, nor abolished.  No one and no thing can give it legitimacy because no one would even exist without it, nor would they be what they are.  All living creatures are its children and it is the mother of them all.

Life itself is the father, but without the mother, all life would reproduce in a state of chaos because uniformity would not exist.  Without the principle of uniformity being present in the nature of off-spring, no higher form of life would, nor could exist because gender attraction would not exist, and mating would take place chaotically; dogs with cats, lions with bears, birds with reptiles, reptiles with fish, carnivors with herbivores, etc, but in fact, no species would nor could even exist.

The uniformity essential to all non-unisex life-forms results in off-spring identical to  parents who have an identical (uniform) nature.  Every life form reproduces only its own kind.  Since species do not mix, chaos does not result.

Of course a fundamental law of Life is that species cannot mix, and uniformity is not optional, it’s fundamental.  The result is that social (as opposed to solitary) species grow into societies larger than a single family, and it is from that larger uniform society that they eventually find a mate, and in which they find companionship and common protection.

[An analogous relationship is that of natural members of a tribe or nation. They are all related in a way because all of their fathers were members of the tribe or nation. They all possess a natural, uniform parental background,  and are all the tribe’s natural members.]

It is the natural testosterone-driven role of the males to guard and protect the females, who in turn, guard and protect the young.  After ensuring survival (via nourishment &  shelter), the number one imperative of life, including the life of social groups, is self-defense — self-preservation, and in that regard both sexes have an innate sense of protectiveness toward those dependent upon them.  Don’t threaten a male’s mate, and don’t threaten a mother’s young.  Innate, visceral reaction and response are built-in to the constitution of all creatures.

A good example was given in the Disney cartoon “Lambert, the Sheepish Lion”.  Nothing could upset or arouse the lion nature of sheepish Lambert who was raised by a ewe in a flock of companion sheep, until, that is, a ravenous wolf came and abducted her with the intent of making her his next meal.
Upon hearing her pleas for help, something snapped inside Lamberts consciousness and a primal response roared out of his subconscious, changing him from a passive sheep into an aggressive male lion hell-bent on defending his mother.  From then on he knew that he not only was capable of protecting  his mother and the flock, but that it was his role in life to do so.

That realization was not unique to Lambert alone, since it’s the most fundamental, primal role of all males of all societies, -meaning the defense of those who are defenseless.
That role, if not performed as a result of natural impulse, -out of loving devotion, must be performed as a responsibility that is obligatory, -as a duty.
It is one’s duty to perform one’s responsibility, and that duty is made obligatory by the tribal group or national group to which one belongs, in order to ensure that it does not fall disproportionately on the shoulders of those males who are not slackers.
That is the basis of a nation’s right to require that its young able male members share in the duty to defend their society & nation since it is their home, and its people are their fellow brothers and sisters in the national family.

That is simple and clear, but there is one complication, and that is the case of those who do not belong to a society but are merely visitors.  Are they expected, and required  to defend the home or dwelling in which they are staying, -or the country in which it is located?  The answer is simple: ~Guests are not under any obligation to perform the duties of citizens & permanent residents because that which might need defending is not connected to them in any way.  They are here today, gone tomorrow, -back to their own home, and homeland to which all of their responsibility belongs.

That is the sole reason for exempting foreign ambassadors and their children from responsibility to defend a nation that is not theirs, and to which they owe no obligation.  There is no other reason, although some sage statesman or judge once opined that they are exempt because “they carry their own nationality with them.”

That is about the most nonsensical statement one could make, although the view it expresses has long been widely used to justify the unjustifiable, which is that while ambassadors “carry their own nationality with them”, their fellow foreigners who are visiting a foreign land but who are not representatives of their own king or government, are in effect nationality-less when visiting abroad, and not carrying their nationality with them, even if their visit is as brief as possible, -while an ambassador may reside for many years.  Well, that is absurd and unexplainable.
Employment does not alter a fundamental principle of belonging.  Either one belongs to one’s own home society or one doesn’t, -or one is in a gray area betwixt the two opposites, meaning they belong to a country that is not their own.
The only thing that distinguishes ambassadors from their fellow foreign citizens is diplomatic immunity.  They are exempt from prosecution for violations of the civil laws of their host nation, but they are exempt from any expectation that they be subject to a nation’s political laws.  No government has or claims the authority to tell a foreign  ambassador that he is forbidden from visiting nation X, or that his sons must submit to military service in their host nation’s army.
Actually, one other thing also distinguishes ambassadors from their fellow foreign citizens, that being that ambassadors may reside in a host nation for many, many years and cannot be told that “their Visa has expired” and they must leave, whereas their fellow citizens can be ordered to leave since they don’t represent their nation.

But what about those male foreigners who go beyond just a temporary stay (whether it be weeks, months, or years, -such as college students)?  What about those who acquire legal permission to become permanent United States residents with a work permit? Are they guests, and thus free from the obligation to defend the nation also?

The answer is that they are not guests, but have an obligation to defend whatever land is their home, aside from their unsevered obligations toward their native country.

Their obligation to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, extends to their children born in America even if they were not natural members of the American family, (being as they were born of, by and to foreigners and not Americans).
That obligation exists because they are members of American society and therefore share the responsibility to help preserve their own social and national world.  It is their duty to do so if needed and called.

Consequently, they, U.S.-resident alien-fathered males, whether native-born or foreign-born, are all obligated and required by U.S. law to register with the Selective Service once they reach the age of 18, unless their father represents a foreign nation.  For sons of ambassadors, a strong legal and cultural barrier keeps them separate from the land in which they reside, and instead keeps them connected primarily to the nation of their father, or parents.

But those males who are not thusly isolated, bear and share the social responsibility of all males who are citizens of the nation.  They are fully subject to the full authority of their host nation’s government in return for permission to live within it, be a part of its society, benefit from its advantages, and be protected by its laws.

They are legal immigrants, like pre-adoptees; i.e., pre-naturalized citizens.  No one can become a U.S. citizen as an adult without living in the U.S. first, -adapting to it and eventually completing the full naturalization process.  But even before completing it, they are still obligated to defend the nation that they’ve choosen as their new, and probably permanent, home.
That means that male children born to them here are fully subject to U.S. federal authority in the sense that they are born with an inherited latent obligation to one day be a member of the pool of male citizens and immigrants who can be called on to serve in the national defense.  But sons born to visiting or “non-resident” foreigners are under no such latent obligation and aren’t expected, required, nor allowed to register at 18 for a possible draft because they have no connection to the United States, and are invariably living in and growing up in their parents’ own foreign homeland.
Just because their mother prematurely gave birth while visiting the American side of Niagara Falls does not embue such a son with the obligation nor privilege of American citizenship.

Does anyone dare argue to the contrary?  If so, on the basis of what moral or natural principle?  There is none.  There never has been one.  There never will be one, and no one has ever articulate one.  The entire defense for believing the opposite is derived from the argument that at some time in British history the monarch choose to extend his greedy authority over not only his own citizens (for life), along with foreign domiciled immigrants, but even over any child born to a woman who happened to just be in the king’s domain for a day visit.  No sane person can justify such a hegemonic policy of a self-serving dictator.

From the perspective of a by-gone era, one would say that such a mother and her husband “carry their nationality with them” and their child belongs to them, not the dictator of Great Britain.  It is what they are that determines what their child is, and they are not British subjects in any sense, -unlike some of their countrymen who have choosen to live in and be members of the king’s realm.
Those who have done so have choosen to be the king’s subjects.  But of course they are not his natural subjects because they were born and raised as subjects of a foreign king.  The king’s ministers and statesmen could have choosen to call them the king’s natural born subjects, but that would have been laughably stupid and unacceptable.  But eventually they did manage to successfully label the children of immigrants by the same description as the children of natural subjects, that being “natural born subjects”.

In the king’s selfish mind he felt that they naturally were his subjects also, which was true, since they were born within his dominion, but that did not replace the fact that they were alien-born subjects, and not natural born subjects since they were born of aliens and not natural subjects.  But somewhere in time the decision was made to demolish the distinction regarding  domestic and foreign paternity and just call everyone born in the realm a natural born subject even though some weren’t.
That bastardization of the language was good for protecting alien-born subjects from discrimination, which comes naturally to humans, but it wasn’t recognized when it came to protecting the kingdom.

No son of a foreigner, even though incorrectly labeled a natural born citizen, could serve in positions holding great power or critical national secrets.  That exception to the new status quo was behind the scenes and invisible in society.  But those responsible for the survival of the nation knew that positions of critical national importance could not be entrusted to just anyone born in the land because some were born and raised with foreign connections and possibly loyalty, such as to the kings of France and Spain.

In America, a similar consideration and requirement was related to who would be allowed to wield the power of the Chief Commander of the American Army and Navy.  Would any and every person born in the American states be allowed into the Presidency or would  it be placed off-limits to the American equivalent of an alien-born subject?

The authors of the Constitution choose to follow the wise limitation of the British and bar the presidency from all citizens except “natural born citizens”.  (Article II, Section I.) That wasn’t a narrow limitation since 98% of the men of the nation were born to American fathers, but it was a limitation carrying significant importance, and it was never knowingly violated until 2008 when an alien-born citizen was unconstitutionally pushed forward by a corrupt Democratic Party leadership to run for an office that they all knew he was not eligible to hold, -the United States presidency, which, unlike all other offices of the United States government, is off-limits to sons of aliens, especially those who are not even immigrants with legal permanent residency.

by a.r. nash  feb. 2013  http://obama–

Here’s my grandfather’s draft notification from 1918.  Look it over and ask yourself whether or not you think any government has the legitimate authority to require such a thing of its temporary guests, or of their children who unavoidably happen to be born here before returning home.bibes-nash-cuendet58


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”.

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: