The Citizenship of Illegal Aliens & Barack Obama
May 13, 2013 Leave a comment
Implications Hidden in the 14th Amendment
The citizenship of millions of Americans is dependent on the citizenship declaration of the 14th Amendment. Most are dependent on its true meaning, but a great number are dependent on its false interpretation.
That misinterpretation springs from the unspecified meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” as mentioned in the amendment, which is here quoted: All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.
Subject to the jurisdiction of government means subject to the government’s authority, which means being under and bearing the legal obligation of citizenship, which comes with the obligation of obedience to authority. No baby ever born in any age has ever been born subject to a citizen’s obligation of obedience to government authority.
No one who is not an adult is subject to the jurisdiction of the government. All subjection is real but does not become real until one becomes an adult member of a society or country or nation. It is real only for them and not until they are members of the adult group.
It is not real for their younger siblings, nor for their children, nor, in a sense, for their sisters, mothers, aunts, nor daughters. Only men are fully subject to the citizen’s obligation of obedience to government’s full authority because only men are obligated to fight for their nation.
No baby has ever been obligated to fight to defend its nation, -nor has any female. That was the reason they were not accorded all the civil responsibilities of citizenship.
That is the reason that national membership did not descend from mothers, being as mothers were not the head of the family (unless divorced or widowed).
The wording of the 14th Amendment has created massive misunderstanding because it is elegantly but horribly worded being as it was authored by men who did not understand the underlying principle with which they were working. They built a statement composed of parts that they arranged in an order which left out essential elements of reality, and for that reason it didn’t make the clear sense that it made in their minds. But their minds were not cognizant of all of the factors that are part of the formula that they intended to elucidate.
Two elements were missing from the abstract picture or structure that they constructed. They didn’t intend for it to be abstract but the absence of those two factors resulted in it being an abstract construction, because its middle was missing.
What was missing? The Truth about subjection; who is subject and who is not. Minors are not subject. They are not born subject to anything other than natural desires and needs. The authors of the amendment knew that, and so what they wrote in fact left out that truth, and its absence requires that it be deduced since it’s only implied and not stated.
It’s implied that those born with an inherited obligation of obedience, -a latent responsibility that they must one day bear, are considered to be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the central government. All who read the amendment are expected to understand the unstated, and to not misinterpret its words to mean something unintended; namely, that babies are subject to the obligation of obedience to government just like adult citizens. The mind that would understand the simple words of the amendment must fill in the blank elements that are missing thanks to its elegant simplicity.
The other element that is missing is the one that was of such antiquity that it probably never even occurred to the authors. It’s position in the original picture, -the original construction of the principle of citizenship, had faded into invisibility and was not included, -just as it was not included anywhere in the Constitution. What was that element? The element of gender.
Just as babies are not subject to the obligation of obedience that citizens bear, so also from time immemorial women were not subject to the obligation either because they also were the exempted and protected vulnerable class that the male citizen class existed to protect and defend as their first and foremost obligation.
Does the Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause read: “No man, except a natural born American man, shall be eligible…”?
Certainly not. Instead is says “No person”. But is that what it really meant? Does not the word person include adult women? Were women allowed to vote or hold public office? “Not in a million years.” So what is the mind that reads the requirement forced to do? It is forced to translate “ideal speak” into “real speak”.
“No man except a natural born American man shall be eligible…” or “No citizen except a natural born male citizen shall be eligible…” Truly, words are one thing; reality is another.
So if in reality women and children were not subject then how did the idea arise that temporarily present foreign parents could also bear the obligation of citizenship? Why would the male tourists of a foreign nation be obligated to fight for America and her women and children and elderly and incapable? If the male father is not so obligated, then how can his child inherit an obligation that does not exist? Answer: He can’t.
This fact is glaringly evident in the example of foreign couples on planes that make a refueling stop-over in Hawaii while on a flight from the far East to the Western hemisphere. If a pregnant wife goes into premature labor and delivers her baby on Hawaiian soil, does that mean the child is born with an inherited innate obligation to defend America? Can that child, when grown, be expected to register with the Selective Service regardless of the fact that its parents are not Americans and never even lived in America? Of course not.
But what does “lived in America” really mean? Does it describe that brief stop-over? Does it describe a one-day visit across our international borders? How about a two day visit, or a two week visit, or a two month visit, or a two year visit by full-time students? The truth is that a visitor is not a resident, just as a guest is a still a guest, whether for an hour or for a month or for several months. Visitors and guests are not under the obligations of residents because they are not members of the family, the household, the society, nor the nation, and thus neither are the children born to them under the roof of the home where they are guests.
That includes the child of a foreign student named Barack Obama. Neither he nor his son were subject to American authority since the father was merely a guest, a visitor. So by the words of the 14th Amendment and its subjection requirement, Obama Jr. was not an American citizen.
But there is more to it. The Supreme Court, when it interpreted the 14th Amendment in the Wong case (1898), jammed back into the missing middle of the amendment’s citizenship construct, a new group which then became viewed as being part of its authority. They were included in an utterly stealthy manner.
The amendment does not spell out who is and who is not subject to the full authority of the American central government, leaving that to be filled in by those who read it, likewise, the Supreme Court did not spell out who is subject either, but its ruling that children of immigrants (permanent members of American society) are also citizens of the United States, forces those reading the amendment and reading their ruling to have to draw a conclusion as to the logic, -the principle, underlying their decision, and there is only one.
It is that fathers of native-born children, whether citizens or not, are subject to the obligation to defend the nation as long as they are more than mere guests, but are indeed full-fledged members of American society with permanent legal permission to live and work in the United States.
One is forced to infer that because of the obligation that adult male members of society bear, their sons inherit that obligation as a latent responsibility which they must shoulder if they come of age in America as children of America, and because of bearing that obligation they were deemed to be American citizens at birth by the Supreme Court even though such a view was never intended nor imagined by most of those who wrote and passed the amendment, each of which was okay with its ambiguous wording because it didn’t mean at the time what it could and did come to mean in the future, and like most people, the authors weren’t thinking much about the future.
Its inherent ambiguity may have been viewed as a positive when it came to getting it ratified because everyone could read into it what they wanted.
So 30 years after its passage, children of immigrants were deemed to be United States citizens, while children of mere foreign visitors were not addressed since the subject of the case was a native-born child of immigrants and not tourists. But that fact escaped the Attorney General at the time, one John Griggs, who jumped to the conclusion that the decision applied to all U.S. birthed children born to all foreigners, -whether members of American society or merely passing through, -with the lone exception of foreign diplomats.
His erroneous view then became the unofficial “Law of the Land” and has ever since been ossified as part of the legal skeleton of the nation as a fully institutionalized error. It is by that error that Obama is commonly assumed to be a U.S. citizen, supposedly having been born in Hawaii. But by the real truth, and the real decision of the court, the 14th Amendment does not apply to the circumstances of his birth since his father was merely a foreign student and not an immigrant.
He is not the only type of presumptive citizen that results from the error. Children of illegal aliens also are deemed to possess U.S. citizenship merely due to being birthed within U.S. borders. That is not based on the amendment nor the court decision regarding that child of immigrants but merely on the presumptuous error of that Attorney General in 1898.
Could a law be passed to correct that error? Sure, but one isn’t even really needed. Since it is merely a policy error, and not an error of Law nor the court, the Attorney General or the President could order that it be corrected immediately.
How could it be corrected? By declaring that it is the policy of the United States government that illegal alien fathers are not subject to the obligation of obedience and military service that citizens and immigrants are subject to. Then, since the fathers would not be subject to the jurisdiction of Washington, their children also would not be subject through them, and therefore would not qualify for citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
The subjection that children of illegal aliens are ignorantly presumed to be born under would vanish instantly and it would be recognized that they are not legally Americans but are foreigners only. They then, in adulthood, would have to choose which nationality they wished to embrace and would have to be naturalized or be deemed illegal aliens.
But there are few if any politicians who would or could call for taking such action. Yet without such a common sense solution to an age-old error, how can any sane person view our government as not being insane? A government that could make and follow, (-as well as institutionalize) an error so large is not a government that any sane person can depend on for their future survival. Just ask the people of New Orleans.
They thought that they were safe, -that the government was protecting them from the lake waters that threatened their endless levees. But the government, and its levees, were an abject failure. And that failure is just the tip of the iceberg. Only a government populated by citizens of a moral and responsible and patriotic and God-fearing society will take their responsibilities with the gravity they deserve.
Such an America no longer exists, if it ever did, except in pockets here and there. It would be wise to live in one of them going forward, otherwise your community will likely be going backward, fiscally and socially and morally speaking. You probably already know that and can see evidence of it all too clearly. Graffiti is the most blatant sign.
By A.R. Nash May 2013