The Phantom Citizenship of President Obama
May 12, 2013 Leave a comment
Citizenship via Natural Association
There are three qualifiers needed in order to be the President of the United States. In reverse order of importance they are; 14 years of residency, 35 years of age, and the most common type of citizenship. That type is known as natural citizenship, -as distinguished from legal citizenship. The nature of natural citizenship has not been understood in American law because it is not of American law but from outside of it. The issue of what it is has been considered in a few cases that made it to the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Waite, in the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett [88 U.S. 162, 1874], reviewed the citizenship exposition of Emmerich de Vattel found in the 1797 English translation of his 1758 tome “The Law of Nations”.
The Chief Justice wrote [with my comments inserted]:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law,… it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, [“naturels” in original French] as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” [he overlooked native-born foreigners]
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens [not natural citizens] children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class [persons born within the U.S. to parents other than citizens] there have been doubts, [as to their citizenship existing] but never as to the first…”[those born to citizen parents]
What was never said by any Supreme Court, Congress, or Attorney General is: “Some authorities go further and exclude as citizens all children born outside the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” [whether they are Americans or not]
Yet it is claimed by some to be a fact that that was the undeniable intent of the Framers, although based on nothing. No supporting evidence or authority. None has been given because none exists. But just the opposite does exists.
The very first Congress declared in the first naturalization act (1790) that the children born abroad (of American parents) are to be “considered as natural born citizens”. The intent was that they not only be recognized as being what they are by birth, (American citizens) but recognized also as being natural American citizens, and thus the same as citizens born within American boundaries.
Without that express language, which was completely absent from the Constitution, the sons of America’s public servants serving abroad as Ambassadors & Consuls, Generals & Admirals, soldiers & sailors (etc.) would have gone unrecognized as being what they are, fellow natural members of their country and natural citizens of their nation.
That order by Congress to all port immigration authorities and magistrates was not aimed at, nor was it intended for, them alone. It carried one and only one connotation, and that was eligibility to become the American President.
There is no other purpose served by that language, and because of that clear fact, it was removed by a later Congress that thought itself to be newer and wiser in its recognition that presidential eligibility was not properly to be addressed in a naturalization act.
What they failed to address was the fact that it was addressed no where else, and they in turn failed to provide any direction regarding what the rule of natural law is for Americans born abroad, thereby turning what the original Congress had made clear into something unclear and lost in a fog of uncertainty.
That uncertainty has not been made clear to this day because the principle of natural law by which such children are Americans is obscured and forgotten, -unrecognized as even being connected to natural law, but is assumed to be instead a matter of legislative authority via the law-making naturalization power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution.
But that authority only applies to foreigners and their children, -and not to Americans and theirs. Do Americans give birth to foreigners when traveling or residing outside U.S. borders?
Does a mountain gorilla give birth to a monkey if its off-spring is not born within gorilla territory? The answer is self-evident. Nature determines the outcome, not ideas about human law and human authority concerning artificial man-made borders.
Question 1: How does a country maintain and increase the number of its members?
Answer: Through the children born to its female members.
Question2: How does a nation maintain and increase the number of its citizens?
Answer: Through the children born to its female citizens.
Exactly the same principle. Member numbers grow via birth and citizen numbers grow via birth. The natural members are the natural citizens.
A mother and father’s child is a natural member of their country even if delivery happens to take place outside of its society. So also a mother and father’s child is a natural citizen of their nation even if delivery happens to take place outside of its national boundaries.
Both facts are true by the same natural law. The number of members of a society, tribe, or country does not increase due to rules or laws, but due to births. So also, the number of citizens of a state or nation does not increase due to laws but due to births. It increases naturally and even in the absence of, and before the existence of, human laws to natural-ize and citizen-ize outsiders.
A member of a country is a citizen of the nation established in that country. Those born to members / citizens are what they inherit from their parents, namely their same race, ethnicity, and nationality. Parents pass those traits to their children without effort, action, or legal maneuvers. Transmission is natural, not legal. It requires no law to happen. Any attempt to mandate otherwise would be unnatural, illegitimate and “a fools errand” because the principle of natural law can’t be nullified.
One is known by and associated with those to whom they were born. If one were a son of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, or General /President Eisenhower then one would carry that respectable identity throughout life. If one were a son of Adolph Hitler, or just a relative, one would carry that ignominious identity through life unless it was kept as a state secret for the sake of the person’s disassociation from such a heinous figure. There are such relatives of Adolph Hitler, but no one knows who they are. Their identity is hidden forever. Association with one’s relatives is an association that is part of every society on earth, and in some, the men sanction “honor killings” of relatives that are viewed as bringing dishonor on them via that association.
One is a natural part of the family, clan, tribe or society into which one is born. Similarly, one is a natural citizen of the nation into which one is born. But such natural citizens are not legal citizens because legal citizens are only citizens via positive law, not via nature. There’s an uncrossable divide between the two.
No legal citizen can ever become a natural citizen because they were born being a natural citizen of another society and nation. Similarly, natural citizens are never legal citizens unless they renounce their citizenship and later regret it and become legal naturalized citizens.
What distinguishes the legal from the natural citizen is nothing other than the parents to whom they were born. Were they citizens or foreigners? Children of foreigners need naturalization just like their parents, but in America they obtain it from birth as long as they are born within territory that is part of the United States, or born in Guam or Puerto Rico (two unnatural exceptions).
The authority that provides them naturalization at birth is the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898 (Wong Kim Ark) which ruled against the combined authority of all of United States history to that point, as well as the Attorney General.
But the majority of justices decided that it was preferable to grant citizenship to children of immigrants than to not do so, and they were sociologically correct since the nation at that time was experiencing a flood of immigration, (including my great grandparents) but they were “legally” incorrect because the 14th Amendment citizenship clause was written to not extend such a right to such children, even though it was viewed by at least one of those who gave birth to it as implying just such a thing.
But instead of debating and settling on the meaning of its simple and elegant language, [All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein the were born,] they passed it in its fully ambiguous but elegant form and consequently its uncorrected ambiguity may result in the ruination and bankrupting of the United States via the misconception that was subsequently arrived at by the Attorney General at the time, John Griggs.
He presumed that not only children of immigrants are to be recognized as American, but children of any and all foreigners must be assumed to be Americans simply based on their birth within U.S. borders, whether or not their parents be in the country as legal resident Green Card immigrants with permanent residency, or be among the flood of illegals who give birth in a country which is not their own, and to which they and their children have no natural attachment, nor natural right to be accepted as members. No other nation on earth follows such an insane and damaging policy. Truly, there are none more stupid than us.
Barack Obama’s father was neither a legal immigrant nor an illegal immigrant because he was not an immigrant at all. He was a Visa Card foreign student and therefore his son was born subject to his father’s nation’s jurisdiction only, and not that of his mother’s nation since jurisdiction flows from the head of the household to the children, -which, within the institute of marriage, is legally the father in immigration law.
Thanks to Congressional statutes passed within the last three-quarters century, a mother’s American citizenship can be imputed to her foreign-fathered children, -if, that is, they are born outside of the United States as provided for by such laws. But there are no statutes for the case of such children born inside of the United States because it has been erroneously presumed that they are covered by the 14th Amendment since A.G. Griggs made the mistake of assuming that all foreigners’ children are under its naturalization authority except children of foreign ambassadors.
Even foreign Consular Officers are amazingly presumed to fall under U.S. jurisdiction, thereby their U.S. born children are deemed to be U.S. citizens even though their fathers cannot be drafted into the U.S. military as can all U.S. citizens and immigrants who are male, and of military age.
Which brings up another important point, namely, that the first naturalization act which identified American children born abroad as being natural born citizens carried an unspoken and impolite connotation which revolved around the fact that American women were excluded from political life. Therefore presidential eligibility was something none of them could qualify for. That means that to label foreign-born Americans as presidentially eligible “natural born citizens” was aimed specifically at American sons born abroad, and not American daughters.
Neither the responsibility of citizenship nor subordination to U.S. federal jurisdiction was attached to American women because that involves being subject to the central government’s power to force American men to perform their national duty and enter military service, train for combat, and fight in war for the defense of their people and nation. Women have never been included under that full authority.
Hence, for those reasons, Barack Obama did not obtain naturalization at birth through his father nor his mother, but was instead born without legal American citizenship, although deemed to be a citizen based on the error the Attorney General made in 1899, -which was adopted and became the policy of the INS and State Departments ever since as a fully institutionalized error.
But policy, though it has the force of law, does not have the legitimacy of law because it is not backed by anything passed by Congress. It exists in the same nether-realm as executive orders, which are found nowhere in the Constitution, -along with Washington’s authority to compel by force, and the coercion of fines, formerly free American citizens to be party to an insurance contract involuntarily, which renders it thereby illegitimate and neither a valid contract nor insurance since that requires free voluntary choice and a monetary gamble that one side will come out ahead. No gamble?…then it’s not insurance. Pre-existing condition? Where’s the gamble on the company’s part when it is a loser from day one?
So our “Mr. President”, our bogus Potus, is not a natural citizen, nor a legal citizen but is only a phantom citizen whose citizenship is backed by nothing in any law that anyone can identify because nothing exists. Barack Obama is the man who fell between the cracks of American law, and no one like him is eligible to be the American President because the President must be a natural born citizen, and he is not that, even if born in the oval office.
But he did a very curious thing for perhaps two decades. He, being born God-only-knows where, and raised for years in a reverential Islamic school in Indonesia, -then mentored by a Communist is Hawaii from the age 10 and on, never had any strong sense of being an American. After-all, his mother conceived him with a foreigner, -married two foreigners, moved to a foreign nation with her foreign husband, and so the natural attachment to America didn’t form in him as it does in normal American children. So it didn’t rub him the wrong way at all when he saw a chance to make some easy money by getting a publisher to pay him a large up-front fee for a biography. What was it about him that they felt was more interesting than 12 million or so other African American men? It was that he was not one of them because he was, as he claimed, born in AFRICA to an African father.
What could be more psychically titillating than such an exotic background and story? It surely would attract book buyers. He used that story to his advantage, and possibly even to obtain foreign student financial support at Occidental College. It was a story that he wore well, and continued to work to his advantage all the way into state and national politics.
He had no reason to alter it after a decade and a half or more because it had no downside, -after all, it wasn’t like anyone would consider a person like himself (a lazy ,unaccomplished, academically invisible former pothead and cocaine user) as presidential material. [no facts about his academic history have ever been made public]
So he had no reason to not stick to his story, -until, that is, someone convinced him that they would back his candidacy for the presidency all the way to and through the Democratic convention and on to the White House.
Only then did he have to do an about-face regarding where he was born. The story had to change, -change either to the truth, or change to a lie and away from the truth. There’s a lot of smoke about the issue, but documents are universally missing or sealed or off-limits, -including public records. So without them, he remains upright though skating on very thin ice.
But what is deducible from his claim of Kenyan birth is the legal consequences of such a birth location. It would have meant that he would have been born without American citizenship since his mother was too young by law to convey it to him if born abroad. So assuming that Barack Obama was an honest man and his long-running story was true, then his own story had him being born as only a Kenyan native and British subject with a Kenyan father. So before the possibility of being President ever occurred to him, his story was that he was born a Kenyan citizen and not an American citizen.
That raises two very difficult questions for him in the time-frame before becoming a presidential candidate and changing his place of birth story:
1. How can a born foreign national be considered to be a natural American citizen?
2. When did he become an American, and by what means?
A third disturbing question is: Why do most Kenyans believe that he is a Kenyan who miraculously became President of the United States?
They claim that he is Kenyan not because he said he was, but because he was born there, in a specific village that is widely regarded as his birth place.
Well, one thing is clear,…no, actually nothing is really clear except the fact that his official documents are fraudulent computer-fabricated digital abstract constructs. We know that much, but knowing a negative is not the same as having proof positive of what the truth is. We can’t know the truth because he can’t tell it, since instead of it setting him free, it would likely imprison him.
by a.r. nash april 2013 http://obama–nation.com