Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinis Citizenship vs. Obama’s Legitimacy

Understanding Presidential eligibility: To understand the Constitution’s requirement that no one is allowed to serve as President except a natural born citizen it is necessary to understand the fundamentals of citizenship. There are two types of citizenship at birth. One is based on a natural principle while the other is based on a policy. The natural principle is that off-spring are the same as their parents and become upon birth the new natural members of their parents’ group. That is the principle of natural membership, and it applies to all natural social groups, -including families, clans, tribes, countries and nations.
National membership by policy is based on an ancillary fact related to child birth and that is the jurisdiction into which one enters the world. That policy has an ancient name known as “jus soli” or Right of Soil while the natural principle goes by the ancient name of “jus sanguinis” or Right of Blood.
In some nations one or both of those are encoded into the law. That is not the case in the United States although it was true in one or more of the founding States of the Union. The United States only recognizes the Right of Blood in its written code of law but only in the context of foreign birth. In regard to domestic birth there is no specific language which recognizes either of the two.

The Constitution does not use either terms in regard to presidential eligibility so we must discern which of the two it refers to by the words “natural born citizen”. Is one a natural born citizen by jus soli or by jus sanguinis?
Law can make one a citizen but it must be on some basis. It must pick one or the other, -or…a law can be worded so vaguely or ambiguously that everyone is confused, -or instead everyone may be absolutely certain due to bias, applied logic, or misapplied logic. So to solve the riddle we must dissect the amorphous nature of a very clouded issue. We can do that by asking a series of questions, beginning with: “Can one be a jus soli citizen in more than one nation?”

The obvious answer is “no” because borders do not overlap. They are discreet and so one cannot be born in two countries. Next question is: “Can one be a jus sanguinis citizen of more than one nation?” The obvious answer is “yes” if one’s parents are not from the same nation and both of their nations impute citizenship to off-spring of its citizens.
The next question is : “Can one be both a jus soli citizen and a jus sanguinis citizen? The obvious answer is “yes” if one is born either in a nation other than that of the parents, -in a nation which bestows citizenship to children born within its borders (like Canada and the U.S.) or is born in either of those nations but with a parent that was from another nation, -one which bestows citizenship to off-spring of its citizens when born abroad.
The final question is: “Can one be a jus soli citizen and a jus sanguinis citizen in three different nations?” The not so obvious answer is “yes”. Ted Cruz is just such a citizen since he was born in Canada (a jus soli Canadian) to an American mother and a Cuban father (jus sanguinis citizenship twice over).

But the answers to those questions do not shed light on what constitutes a natural born citizen, so we must explore what its parameters are. Firstly, natural born citizens are all born being citizens, but confusion does not end there because some are born being citizens by jus soli and the rest (the 97%) are born being citizens by jus sanguinis. So the question then becomes: “Does jus sanguinis produce natural citizenship or does the coincident location of one’s exit from the womb produce natural citizenship?”

To answer that we only need consider the natural law principle of natural membership. Does the location of a newborn’s exit from it’s mother’s womb result in it being of the same species as its parents and belonging to their same group as a new member? The answer is obvious. A natural citizen, like a natural member, is not the result of where birth takes place but of what citizenship one inherits as their “political” nature. One’s national membership from birth is either the result of natural inheritance or is the result of national law (or policy), -which is a legal determinant, and not a natural determinant.
Being born a citizen can be the result of either but being born a natural citizen cannot, because, unlike birth, there is nothing natural about legal citizenship. It is imposed by the will and rules of rulers, and has no basis in natural principle unless they impose a rule that natural citizenship shall be the law of the land.

We have no such law, nor do we have its opposite, hence the confusion. That is nothing new since it dates back many centuries to eras that were so far removed from the fundamental principle of national membership that confusion arose due to the undue influence of the Crown to extend its umbrella of ownership over all persons born within the King’s dominion. He and his minions imposed the rule of jus soli on top of jus sanguinis thereby creating confusion where none had existed before. The resulting confusion has existed ever since, except where it was created. The British eventually renounced jus soli as the law of the land but that came only long after the power of the Crown was neutered. Eventually they corrected the bastardization of citizenship principle in a major rewrite of their nationality and naturalization law, but that has not happened in the United States and so confusion still reigns.
But the confusion here is even worse because people have no idea that one cannot be a jus soli citizen as well as a foreign jus sanguinis citizen and still be a natural citizen when such a birth circumstance results instead in not being a natural citizen of either nation. Just as one cannot be a jus soli citizen of one’s parents’ nation if the parents are of two nations and one was not born in either, so also one cannot be a natural born citizen of one nation while also being a natural born citizen of another nation through parents of different nationalities. Similarly, a mule is not a natural member of either parents’ breed of equine because it is not a natural horse -like one parent, nor a natural donkey, like the other. It is unnatural because it is a sterile hybrid. Barack Obama is just such a hybrid citizen as acknowledged by all including himself, but what he has never called himself is a natural born citizen. He has claimed since running for President that he is a native born citizen but native born citizens are not eligible to be President unless they are also natural born citizens, which he is not.

But it is even worse than that because Barack Obama is not even a United States citizen by jus sanguinis (since his mother was too young to impart U.S. citizenship to him by law or policy), nor was his father able to not impart Kenyan citizenship to him by Kenyan and British law, nor was Obama Jr. able to obtain jus soli citizenship since that would require that he be born to a father who was a legal immigrant as mandated by the 14th Amendment, -which his father was not.

So his citizenship is non-existent except as a presumption based on an erroneous policy instituted in 1898 which became the de facto law-of-the-land even though it was in fact just an institutionalized error of misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment in that year.
One can argue that Barack Obama absolutely is a U.S. citizen but one cannot argue that they can show exactly where in the U.S. Code that the circumstances of his birth results in U.S. citizenship.

If the “facts” of his birth are as he claims, and he was born somewhere in the United States, then he is not a U.S. citizen by U.S. law, but he would be if his mother had been several months older and he was born abroad, then the Code would cover him and he would be a U.S. citizen. But he is not a citizen by mere location of birth because the 14th Amendment requires more than that, much more, -namely a parent who is potentially subject to the most fundamental obligation of citizenship, -that being the obligation to defend the nation. Immigrant fathers are subject to that obligation but foreign temporary guests are not, and his father was only a temporary guest and not an American nor an immigrant, thus leaving him devoid of citizenship that’s based on birth in the United States and full subjection to its government.
As such, he is a charlatan, a fraud, a liar, a counterfeiter, a fake, a usurper, a deceiver and a traitor to the very Constitution that he took a lying oath to protect and defend. That oath was written in part to protect the nation from imposters such as him.
But he is not the only problem since we are also plagued by an entire government, national media, and State governments that silently and complicitly allowed him to be accepted as a candidate, with charisma, charm, and high hopes nullifying any allegiance to the requirement of the Constitution.

It sounds like a conspiracy. It was in fact a perfect storm of ignorance, indifference, biased preference, broad political corruption, and national conspiracy at the highest level of the Democrat party. We now know that he bolstered his irrelevant claim of domestic birth by concocting a 9-layer counterfeit digital abstract image of a Hawaiian birth certificate. It, like the honesty and integrity of union dominated, self-serving political hacks in the U.S. government give one the realization that it is unlikely that one can be overly suspicious about what those in government are willing to do to protect their well-feathered nests and political agendas.

Hopefully the current confluence of government corruption, over-reach, and conspiracy of cover-up will nudge the closed minds of those with no consciousness of what constitutes ineligibility to begin to suspect that perhaps there is something suspicious about Obama’s citizenship, along with the self-evident fraudulence of his counterfeit so-called “birth certificate” cyber document. But revelations will have to become much more shocking for that to definitely happen. Knowing what we know now, if Congress does its duty, that will eventually happen, and with all the importance riding on the next election, it needs to happen.

Advertisements

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”.

21 Responses to Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinis Citizenship vs. Obama’s Legitimacy

  1. arnash says:

    I’m always irritated by those who claim that jus soli was the law of the land except for the case of children of diplomats and enemies in hostile occupation, because they never elucidate any principle by which they qualify for exception.

    But in the old English writings that do, it is always explained to be so because they are not born subject to the authority of the King since they are subject to a foreign sovereign, yet the obamatrons never ever bring up that fact since it applies also and equally to children of foreign guests.
    It is a principle written in stone yet they pretend it doesn’t exist because it explodes the American bastardization of the Wong ruling which applied solely to a son of foreign immigrants, and not to “non-immigrant aliens” who remain fully subject to their own government with no subject to that of Washington other than limits on the length of stay and right to work.
    Subjection of municipal, State and federal law is not 14th Amendment subjection to the full authority of the national government which citizens are subject to. All foreigners, including Ambassadors, are subject to all of those laws also. Those with diplomatic immunity are just exempt from prosecution for violating them, but are still obligated and expected to obey them.
    Obama, like the son of Sitting Bull, was not born subject to U.S. jurisdiction over citizens because the father was not. That being the case, he is not a 14th Amendment citizen, and thus is not a U.S. citizen at all unless naturalized as an adult since, within the U.S., nationality is conveyed from the head of the “family”, which was his father, not his American mother.

  2. Atticus Finch says:

    The status of Obama’s dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.
    A dual citizen is to a natural citizen what a mule is to the horse & donkey that mated and produced a sterile hybrid mule off-spring. Obama is a hybrid both racially and politically, having been born half Kenyan. No half-Kenyan (half-alien) is a natural American. No half citizen is a natural citizen. This is elementary school stuff.

    What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States.
    Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)
    Except for your utterly erroneous first statement, the rest is all true, but unfortunately, you have no comprehension of what it all means.
    No one is born in allegiance to anyone or anything unless you live in a place like North Korea. Citizens of free republics are born with a latent obligation to defend the defenseless among them (women, children, disable, and elderly) and that obligation is expressed as a military obligation to “bear arms” as all naturalized citizens must swear to do if called. That oath does not include such an obligation being required of foreign women since it was written before they were even allowed to become naturalized Americans. It was written for men, -men who were “born in the allegiance of the United States”. They, the natural citizens of the nation were joined by the foreigner-born, native-born, naturalized-at-birth-citizens after the Supreme Court holding in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. Just because such persons are born natural-ized at birth by the law of the land does not make them natural citizens. Rather, they are merely legal citizens, and as such are not eligible to be President.

    Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized. [Opinions of ignorant and fallible people wearing black robes is irrelevant to what the truth actually is. ] United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)(“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)

    In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913) (“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”) See also ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.”)

    Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.
    [Obama was born being neither a naturalized citizen since he was not subject to the naturalizing authority of the 14th Amendment, nor a natural citizen since he lacked an American father as the head of the Obama family. He therefore was not born as an American citizen by law but merely by entrenched, established, institutionalized federal policy, -a policy first put forth in 1898 by the U.S. Attorney General following the Wong holding. It went a bridge too far by interpreting the holding falsely. Claiming that even children born to alien parents who were NOT subject to the full jurisdiction of Washington since they were merely guests of the nation was a travesty against the Wong holding which only covered children of legal immigrants.

    In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
    the court noted:

    “It is a long recognized and well established principle [NOTE: a “principle” is not a LAW, it is merely the policy of the executive branch and can be changed via an executive order by the A.G. or the President.] that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens. (internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such [extra-legal] citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents. (internal citations omitted)

    Similarly the court in United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43 , 56 (CD Ca. 1967) observed:

    “Obedient primarily to that unequivocal constitutional language, but also to the lately quoted Title 8 U.S.C., section 1401(a) (1), it has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.); and that upon the subject, his or her color or racial origin is immaterial.”(internal citation omitted)
    [HUGE omission: the parents (meaning the father) must be fully subject to the authority of the national government, but visitors are not so subject; only immigrants are subject because they and only they are legal permanent members of American society. Foreign guests are not. This is very elementary.]
    Furthermore, Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) noted:

    “The language of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring two kinds of citizenship is discriminating. It is: “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.” While it thus establishes national citizenship from the mere circumstance of birth within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States,” Id. at 183.

    In the New Jersey Supreme Court case Benny v. O’Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895), Justice Van Syckel addressed the issue before the court: “The question presented is whether a person born in this country of alien parents, who, prior to his birth, had their domicile here, is a citizen of the United States?”

    In answering in the affirmative Justice Van Syckel declared: “The words of the fourteenth amendment are, “born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.” Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country. Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were ‘domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.” Id All true. Note they were “domiciled here”, not mere foreign visitors here on a Visa that could be revoked at any time.

    As such, Obama’s dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is sufficient to confer born citizenship status.
    [No born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President unless he be a natural born citizen. That means a citizen via birth. Birth is totally unrelated to geography. One can be born on land, sea, air, or outer space, and their nationality is automatically inherited from their parents, but no foreigner-born child that is not born within U.S. territory is an American citizen. That sort of land-dependent, border-dependent citizenship is purely legal in nature. It has nothing at all to do with natural citizenship.]

  3. Atticus Finch says:

    Courts do not recognized “partial” citizenship nor do they acknowledged “defective” 14th Amendment citizenship. Either Obama is a natural born citizen or is an alien.
    [I’ve written an exposition listing and explaining 10 kinds of citizenship. Knowledge fails you due to not having read it.]

    There is no “hybrid citizen” in that a person who is born in the United States is a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen.” In other words, stating that Obama is an United States citizen but not a natural born citizen is similar to being “partially pregnant” either he is a natural born citizen or not.

    If he is not a natural born citizen because of misguided notion that he was not born under the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States phraseology due to the status of his alien father then he must be an alien.
    [Your dogmatic mind has run ahead of your logic and knowledge because you’ve failed to even mention naturalized citizens. Are they aliens or natural born citizens?
    There’s a very little known truth about American citizenship policy, and it is a fundamental principle of our nation going back to its founding or before. That policy is the doctrine of citizenship equivalency. By it, all citizens are viewed as being natural citizens regardless of how long they have been a citizen or by what means. The framers of the Constitution meant to bar all citizens from the presidency except those born as natural citizens, thereby excluding all those who were
    made natural citizens by the American doctrine of citizenship equivalency.

    However, numerous courts have held that native born children of alien parents come within the 14th Amendment citizenship clause. Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949) (“It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens. Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1” ;Benny v. O’Brien 32 Atl 696, 697(New Jersey 1895)(“Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were ‘domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.”; Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 US 454, 457 (1920)(“It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649. But while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN”)(emphasis added); Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999)(“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS of the United States.”)(emphasis added)

    [the take-away: any guy who works for the government is like the Pope, he can’t make an error or hold an incorrect opinion. Everything he says and does is gospel perfect and absolutely true. And presidents don’t commit adultery, lie, or engaged in cover-ups of illegal activities. How about we all live in the real world. Opinions do not change facts.]

    As such, there has not been one decision by United States courts that they have held that a native born child of an alien father or alien parents was not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under the 14th Amendment and thus was not a United States citizen.

  4. Atticus Finch says:

    You wrote “But it is even worse than that because Barack Obama is not even a United States citizen by jus sanguinis (since his mother was too young to impart U.S. citizenship to him by law or policy),”

    What does the age of a mother has to do with the citizenship status of a child BORN IN THE UNITED STATES? The only bearing that a mother’s age is applicable is when the child is BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES. See 8 U.S.C. 1401 (g) (“a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.”
    [You are correct sir! (legally speaking). I made the mistake of using the word “since” which implied that the reason jus sanguinis was not applicable was due to her age, which is only true in regard to foreign birth. The point I failed to make clear was that the reason for that law is a policy that is as old as the nation. Until the rewriting of nationality law following the Cable Act of 1922, citizenship–nationality was conveyed solely by the head of the household.

    That meant that mothers who were not widows never passed their citizenship to their children. It was always the citizenship of the father that was preeminent. So much so that if Obama was born in the same era as his grandfather, neither he nor his mother would even be citizens of the United States at all since they would both have been British only. (Naturalization Act of 1907)
    So jus sanguinis only applies in the United States by the principle of nationality descending from the head of the household, -not the mother (unless the father was dead before birth of their child). So Obama did not inherit American citizenship from his mother nor his father, nor via the 14th Amendment which only covers children of immigrants. Hence he was not born being an American citizen at all. His supposed citizenship is merely an assumed thing based on entrenched institutionalized error resulting from an asinine misinterpretation. He can’t therefore be described as anything other than a federal policy citizen because he is neither a legal citizen nor a naturalized citizen nor a natural citizen.]

  5. Atticus Finch says:

    you wrote “One can argue that Barack Obama absolutely is a U.S. citizen but one cannot argue that they can show exactly where in the U.S. Code that the circumstances of his birth results in U.S. citizenship.”

    The 14th Amendment codified the common law principle of Jus Soli in recognizing that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens except those born to foreign ambassadors.
    [A huge error is embedded in the minds of all establishmentarians who are indoctrinated with the consensus opinion of the legal establishment in regard to the 14th Amendment. That huge error is repeated over and over just as you’ve repeated it in that statement. What did you repeat? Only half of the requirement of 14th Amendment citizenship. You’ve swallowed the fallacy that only native-born children of ambassadors are exempt from the full authority of the American government. That is completely an asinine falsehood.

    Why was it then embraced by the establishment? Because for a long, long time everybody has been unaware of the true meaning of what subjection is and requires. Subjection is not related to privileges, immunities, or rights. It is related solely to social responsibility. One is the obligation to serve on juries. The other is the obligation of healthy able-bodies males to defend the nation.

    If one is not born of such a father or one who was once such a citizen or immigrant in his younger years, then one was not born subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States because one was born of a foreign-domiciled father instead.

    Every male born in every nation is subject to a latent responsibility to defend some nation. It may be the one where he is born and raised, or it may be the one where his parents live, but only hybrids are born with an obligation to two different nations due to parents from two different nations. The nationality of such dual-citizen children is always legal in nature and never natural, and they are never entrusted with the immense responsibility to defend the President and VP, guard the White House, nor to handle or launch nuclear bombs. Those positions are only open to children of American parents. Children of foreigners need not apply.

    “It was a fundamental rule of the common law of England, that persons born in England and under the allegiance and protection of that government, were English subjects [yes, subjects and subjects only; -not natural subjects unless they were born to Englishmen. Only they were subject for life to the Crown, with permanent allegiance owed] regardless of the nationality of the parents. Those born in England of ambassadors and of enemies having hostile occupancy of a portion of English soil, were not subjects; because not born within the allegiance. An alien domiciled in England owes temporary allegiance in return for protection afforded him and, hence, his child born in England is born in the allegiance of the crown which allegiance, in the child’s case, is permanent.
    [A DIRECT AND EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS, WHICH LAW THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWED IN ITS TOTALITY. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT OPPOSED TO THE DEATH THE DOCTRINE OF PERMANENT ALLEGIANCE AND EVEN WENT TO WAR AGAINST THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH BECAUSE OF IT (THE WAR OF 1812)]
    Such was the law of the colonies and the law of the United States down to the 14th amendment; and such is still the law here and in England.

    [THAT IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. IT WAS THE LAW OF ONLY FOUR COLONIES-/-STATES AND WAS NEVER, EVER “THE LAW” OF THE UNITED STATES.]
    The 14th amendment affirms the common-law rule that citizenship follows birth. An alien owes allegiance to the United States while domiciled here, [All aliens legally domiciled here are immigrants, -not visiting foreigners] and his children born here are born in the United States and under its jurisdiction. Such allegiance is but local and temporary; still it is strong enough to confer citizenship on his children born here. Samuel Fox Mordecai, Dean of the Law School, Trinity College. “Law Notes –Brief Summaries of the Law (1911) page 167
    [that makes such children born citizens. It does not make them natural citizens because their citizenship is dependent on the 14th Amendment, and the amendment makes no change to the requirement that the President be born a natural citizen (not a legal citizen, not a born citizen, but a natural born citizen.]

  6. Atticus Finch says:

    You wrote: “. But he is not a citizen by mere location of birth because the 14th Amendment requires more than that, much more, -namely a parent who is potentially subject to the most fundamental obligation of citizenship, -that being the obligation to defend the nation. Immigrant fathers are subject to that obligation but foreign temporary guests are not, and his father was only a temporary guest and not an American nor an immigrant, thus leaving him devoid of citizenship that’s based on birth in the United States and full subjection to its government.”

    Answer: The jurisdictional clause of the 14th Amendment states: ” 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.”

    Under your theory of this clause, no alien is subject to the 14th Amendment and as such Obama’s father wasn’t subject to the 14th Amendment and his son even though born in the United States isn’t a citizen because he himself isn’t subject to the 14th Amendment.

    Your theory is flawed. * * *
    [YOUR PERCEPTION OF MY THEORY IS FLAWED. I don’t claim that no alien is subject. I claim that only “immigrant aliens” are subject. Those who are not subject are what the CIS call “non-immigrant aliens”.]

    Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898), and THUS ELIGIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY.” Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 66 (D. N.H 2008)(emphasis added)

    [THE FLAW IN THAT CLAIM IS THAT IT IS FACTUALLY FALSE. There was never any such American law until the Supreme Court chose to create one of its own volition in Wong. The person who made that claim was either ignorant of the truth or was flat-out lying.
    Of the thirteen colonies, only four allowed citizenship to be granted to children of immigrants. That left nine that did not. Thus it was never “American law” nor was it ever federal law. The national government never recognized alien-born citizenship until the Wong ruling.]

    At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)
    (internal citation omitted)

    [ONE CANNOT TALK ABOUT “a country”, nor generic “common law” as if the United States of American is or was still a part of Great Britain, -a nation whose government we so despised that we over-threw it. Also, the statement IS FACTUALLY WRONG! If George Custer had a son born to his wife while in sovereign Sioux territory, he would not be a “native Sioux”. That covers the “born within the jurisdiction” error. As for the “and allegiance of a country” it needs to be recognized that such terminology has no meaning in a free democratic republic no matter how many ignorant disciples of the old-school law fail to understand that fact.
    Babies are not born with or under “allegiance” to anything other than their mother’s breasts.
    They are born with a latent future responsibility to defend their own and their nation’s women and children and elderly if they are born male. Otherwise they are / were under no subjection of citizenship because they could not vote nor serve in elected or appointed high government positions.]
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, FOR IF HE HATH ISSUE HERE, THAT ISSUE IS A NATURAL BORN SUBJECT;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898)
    [WHICH PRINCIPLE? THE PRINCIPLE THAT MEMBERSHIP MAKES ONE RESPONSIBLE TO DEFEND THE DEFENSELESS, AND THAT MEMBERSHIP MEANS THAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE BORN AS MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY TO WHICH THEIR PARENTS HAVE JOINED THEMSELVES. It’s an elementary and primal obligation which binds members together is such a way that their children will be born and raised as members of no other nation as long as they do not migrate away from the land of their birth.

    AS FOR THAT GOD-FORSAKEN, MONARCH-CENTERED, MEDIEVAL CONCEPT OF ALLEGIANCE; IT’S ONLY COROLLARY IN OUR FREE REPUBLIC IS ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. NOT TO THE GOVERNMENT, NOR THE PEOPLE, NOR THE STATES, NOR THE NATION, -ONLY TO THE CONSTITUTION. ANY OTHER TALK OF IT IS IMPROPER AND INAPPLICABLE.
    As for Lord Coke, he was a monarchy promoting and defending backer of his royal majesty the King and his divine earthly authority and right to rule over all souls dwelling in and born within his dominion. He wouldn’t know Natural Law if it hit him in the face.]

    Mr. Binney quote: “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen,“.
    BEING A CITIZEN IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING A NATURAL CITIZEN. THERE’S NO DIFFERENCE IN LAW, BUT THERE’S A DIFFERENCE IN THE CONSTITUTION REGARDING PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY. It’s like a natural child of a mother & father in comparison to their child adopted at birth. No difference. Unless you need a liver transplant. Or a Commander-in-Chief whose loyalty is beyond suspicion of duplicity. Then, the law and equal treatment are one thing, but accommodation with reality is another.]
    ~ ~ ~ ~
    “Your focus on Obama’s father’s status in determining whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen is misplaced since courts have long recognized that the focus is on the child not the parents of the child to determine the child’s natural born citizenship status.”

    [THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP STATUS. THERE IS ONLY CITIZENSHIP STATUS. YOU EITHER HAVE IT OR YOU DON’T OR YOU HAVE ONLY PROVISIONAL CITIZENSHIP (AS A MINOR). NO COURT HAS EVER HAD THE AUTHORITY TO PONTIFICATE REGARDING ANYTHING OTHER THAT CITIZENSHIP, EVER. AND THE SCOTUS IS DOING ITS BEST TO COMPLETELY AVOID THE ISSUE.]

    “[BRITISH] Courts have long established since the Calvin’s Case in 1608 that an issue of an alien, born in BRITAIN is a natural born SUBJECT of the KING. This English Common Law rule has been recognized in the COLONIES,
    or in the words of Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” Id. at 654-55
    [THAT IS ONE OF THE GREATEST, IF NOT THE GREATEST LIE EVER AUTHORED BY ANY JUSTICE. IT IS FLAT OUT FALSE, AND HENCE HE DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO SUPPORT IT. MARIO APUZZO WROTE AN ENTIRE HISTORICAL EXPOSITION EXPOSING JUST HOW FALLACIOUS IT WAS. IT WAS ASTONISHINGLY FALSE.]

    • Robert C. Laity says:

      A Natural born citizen IS:
      1. One born IN the United States
      IN ADDITION TO:
      2. having been born of Parents who were BOTH Americans

      The absence of one part of this equation negates the other.

      Affirmed in Minor v Happersett, U.S. Supreme Court

      See: “There is No ‘President’ Obama” and “El Usurpator” by Me..

      • arnash says:

        Naturally you’ve cited no authority for your mistaken presumption about what the origin is of natural citizenship, and that is because there is no authority. There is natural law on one side and nothing on the other. But it’s easy to be set on the right track. Here’s an explanation that will help you get there.

        Membership in the American Family

        Membership comes via two main means: one is being born as a member of the American family, while the other one is being adopted into the family.

        Those born into the family are born of Americans. Those adopted are born of foreigners and become new Americans by means other than birth, i.e., by a process dependent on law.

        There are three ways to be adopted into the American family. 1. Via the process of nationalization by voluntary effort and naturalization law. That involves being a foreigner who’s voluntarily adopted as an adult (a naturalized citizen by law).
        2. Via natural transmission of the adopted new nationality of one’s parents or father, -making one an automatic involuntary derivative citizen as a minor (deriving one’s new citizenship from one’s parents).
        3. Via automatic involuntary adoption of a new nationality bestowed at birth to children of immigrants who are not Americans. They are 14th Amendment citizens by law (thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in 1898).

        Natural citizens are not citizens by naturalization law nor by the 14th Amendment, but by birth. They are born as natural members of the American family because they are born to members. They are not adopted. They are not legal citizens like the adopted members. They are natural members, -natural citizens, and make-up about 97% of the population. They are eligible to be President if they met the other qualification requirements, -one of which is not connected to where they are born. Their membership in the American family is passed from the head of the family to the children, automatically, without any intervention of government. All government can do is facilitate the recognition of their natural citizenship.

      • Atticus Finch says:

        Let’s revisit the Minor case.

        Justice Waite tells us that Minor has standing to sue under the 14th Amendment as a citizen of the United States. Nowhere in the opinion did Justice Waite declare Ms. Minor to be a natural born citizen; in fact, he mentioned Ms. Minor as a citizen several times. He mentioned “natural born citizen” four times in the opinion but none in reference to Ms. Minor.

        He mentioned natural born citizen in reference to Constitution wherein he quotes “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President” and when he quotes the section of Naturalization Act of 1790 that “that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.”

        He mentioned “natural born citizen” in the following paragraph in which he defines who is natural born citizen:

        “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, 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 as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

        Some authorities… [WHEN AUTHORITIES are not authoritative because they don’t know what they think they know] Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.[Jus Soli} As to this class there have been doubts, [BECAUSE THEY WERE ALIEN-BORN] but never as to the first. [BECAUSE THEY WERE AMERICAN BORN]
        For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. [DOUBTS EXISTED BECAUSE NOT ALL AMERICANS GOT THE MESSAGE THAT WE ARE NO LONGER A PART OF NOR ATTACHED TO THE REJECTED BRITISH MODEL. “THEIR LAWS ARE NOT OUR LAWS.” THEIR SUBJECTSHIP IS NOT OUR CITIZENSHIP. OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT WAS NOT THE NATURALIZER OF FOREIGN IMMIGRANTS, IT WAS THE STATES, AND THAT RESULTED IN CONFUSION AS TO NATIONAL POLICY.]
        It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Id at 167-168.(emphasis added)

        [HE DIDN’T KNOW EXACTLY WHY THAT WAS TRUE, AND THUS COULDN’T STATE THE PRINCIPLE THAT MADE IT TRUE, BUT HE AT LEAST KNEW THAT IT WAS TRUE. IF HE, AND THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT, HAD KNOWN THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP, THEN HE COULD HAVE AND WOULD HAVE OMITTED “WITHIN THE JURISDICTION” BECAUSE THAT FACT IS IRRELEVANT TO NATURAL CITIZENSHIP.]

        Note in this paragraph that Justice Waite doesn’t preclude the idea that children of aliens could be considered natural born citizens but there were doubts and he further stressed that for purposes of this case it was not necessary for the court to address these doubts.

        [THAT IS A BAD MISCHARACTERIZATION. NOT DELIBERATELY I HOPE. “without reference to the citizenship of their parents” THE DOUBTS WERE AS TO THE CITIZENSHIP of alien-born children. NO ONE HAD DOUBTS THAT THEY WERE NOT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.]

        The reason that Justice Waite’s language regarding natural-born citizen is dicta is that the status of Minor’s citizenship was not the issue. In fact, Justice Waite recognized that Ms. Minor as a citizen had standing under the 14th Amendment to sue but that the Constitution does not confer the right of suffrage upon any citizen.

        Ms. Minor’s right to vote wasn’t contingent if she were a natural born citizen but rather if United States CITIZENS both natural born or naturalized had a right to vote based on the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment.

        The Court concluded that no such right exists to United States citizens under the 14th Amendment.
        [IF THERE HAD BEEN A REASON TO DECIDE THAT SUCH A RIGHT EXISTED, THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND THAT IT ONLY APPLIED TO MEN SINCE THAT WAS THE UNIVERSAL STATUS QUO THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE NATION.
        WAITE NEED NOT HAVE GONE THE LONG WAY IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE COURT’S RULING. THE COURT COULD HAVE SIMPLY IGNORED MINOR’S CITIZENSHIP ALTOGETHER AND SIMPLY DECIDED THE ISSUE REGARDING THE RIGHT TO VOTE. BUT THEY, LIKE CONGRESS, ENJOYED BEING IMPORTANT AND ACCRUING MORE POWER AND INFLUENCE TO THEMSELVES BY OPINING ON THINGS THAT WERE NOT REALLY EVEN BEFORE THEM. IT MUST HAVE BEEN A SLOW SEASON AND THEY WERE FILLING THE TIME WITH SOMETHING.]

  7. Atticus Finch says:

    You wrote: ” Immigrant fathers are subject to that obligation but foreign temporary guests are not, and his father was only a temporary guest and not an American nor an immigrant, thus leaving him devoid of citizenship that’s based on birth in the United States and full subjection to its government.”

    Answer:

    All foreigners who reside in the United States are under the jurisdiction and have temporary allegiance to the United States except Ambassadors under the 14th Amendment.

    Justice Field in Carlisle v. United States, 83 US 147 (1873) made this observation about foreigners owing this duty of temporary allegiance to the United States when he wrote:

    All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection.”

    By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.

    This obligation of temporary allegiance by an alien resident in a friendly country is everywhere recognized by publicists and statesmen. Id at 154.

    Moreover, “an alien resident owes a temporary allegiance to the Government of the United States, and he assumes duties and obligations which do not differ materially from those of native-born or naturalized citizens; he is bound to obey all the laws of the country, not immediately relating to citizenship, and is equally amenable with citizens for any infraction of those laws.” Eisler v. United States, 170 F. 2d 273, 279 (DC Cir. 1947)

    Similarly, the court in Fletes-Mora v. Rogers, 160 F. Supp. 215, 218 (SD Ca 1958) noted: “Our law has long recognized an alien’s obligation of “temporary allegiance” to a country while he is within its territory. The term “temporary allegiance” refers to the alien’s duty to obey all laws of a country not immediately relating to citizenship so long as he remains in that country.”

    Thus, Obama’s father was under the jurisdiction of the United States while residing in the United States as an alien. The only possible exception to this rule is that if Obama’s father was an enemy occupying Hawaii and that Obama was born in enemy occupied Hawaii would Obama be considered an alien. See Calvin’s Case 1608 (“And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,TM neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue’)

    • arnash says:

      Wow! You’ve inadvertently disproved your own point. Your bias has oiled your mind with a waterproof seal that doesn’t let the water of reason penetrate your thinking. Observe your own quotes: “All foreigners who reside“; “the government under which he lives“; “The alien, whilst domiciled in the country”; “continues during the period of his residence.”; “temporary allegiance by an alien resident“.

      What you need to grasp is that only immigrants are domiciled residents and members of American society.

      Foreign students and workers are never considered “residents” nor “residing” in the United States. They are instead on an extended visit, as guests of the government. They have zero obligations toward the national government except to not break state or federal laws and to leave when ordered or when their Visa expires. That’s all.

      But that is not all for immigrants and their children. They must register with the Selective Service and serve in the national defense when or if called. They can be sent to their death in battle, foreign guests cannot, nor can they be drafted because they are under none of the obligations of citizens. Instead they are under the international protection of the Law of Nations. Google the law of nations. It’s a whole list of obligations that nations must follow. It is a fundamental element of our constitutional republic, and is even mentioned in the Constitution under the powers of Congress to punish violations of the law of nations.

      They are not subject to the absolute full jurisdiction of the national government as are citizens and immigrants. As such, any child fathered by them is not born subject to that authority either but solely to the government of its foreign father.
      Such a child is not a 14th Amendment citizen of the United States according to the Wong Kim Ark holding. By that Supreme Court ruling, such automatic involuntary citizenship at birth is only applicable to children of aliens who are immigrants because only they are fully subject to federal authority. Guests are not. That Supreme Court did not extend citizenship to children of foreign guests, only to those of immigrants, hence Obama is not a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, and certainly not a natural citizen (which requires at a minimum an American father). In fact he is not a U.S. citizen at all according to actual law and not mere policy.

      “The term “temporary allegiance” refers to the alien’s duty to obey all laws of a country not immediately relating to citizenship so long as he remains in that country.”

      The laws relating to citizenship are what make the difference between foreign visitors or guests and foreign immigrants who have growing roots in American society and are subject to the obligations of citizens in regard to defending the nation.

      • Atticus Finch says:

        You wrote:”They are not subject to the absolute full jurisdiction of the national government as are citizens and immigrants. As such, any child fathered by them is not born subject to that authority either but solely to the government of its foreign father.”

        Answer:

        United States does not share its jurisdiction of persons living in the United States with another country. A foreign country doesn’t exercise its sovereignty or jurisdiction over its citizens in the United States. ” Obedient primarily to that unequivocal constitutional language, but also to the lately quoted Title 8 U.S.C., section 1401(a) (1), it has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.); and that upon the subject, his or her color or racial origin is immaterial.” United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43 , 56 (CD Ca. 1967) (internal citations omitted)

        A child born in the United States to alien parents doesn’t come under the jurisdiction of his or her parents’ country UNLESS that child resides in the parents’ country. “Courts have long recognized that foreign nations have no jurisdiction over its citizens or subjects in the United States. “[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize.” Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956) . See also Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)(“Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.”)

        [THAT IS UNINTENTIONAL OBFUSCATION VIA AMBIGUITY. NO MENTION IS MADE OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A VISITOR FOR A DAY AND A SETTLER FOR LIFE, -AS IF THERE WERE NONE. THAT JUVENILE THINKING IS PATHETICALLY THOUGHTLESS. HUMANS ARE CAPABLE OF PARSING COMPLEX SITUATIONS, YET PEOPLE LIKE THE ONES WHO WRITE SUCH KINDERGARTEN LEVEL STATEMENTS TAKE ZERO COMPLEXITY INTO THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS. ARE THEY TOO POMPOUS, ARROGANT, LAZY, OR STUPID? MAYBE A COMBINATION.

        WHAT DOES THAT STATEMENT IGNORE? THE FACT THAT TEMPORARY GUESTS ARE PROTECTED BY THE LAW OF NATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES DEALING WITH TEMPORARY VISITORS (NOT THAT I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE, BUT THEY BY REASON MUST EXIST, OR ELSE NATIONS COULD DO THINGS LIKE CONSCRIPT FOREIGN TOURISTS INTO THEIR ARMIES AND SEND THEM TO THEIR DEATHS IN BATTLE. WHY CAN’T THEY DO THAT? BECAUSE NO NATION’S SOVEREIGNTY IS LEGITIMATELY UNLIMITED. IT IS BOUND WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAWS OF NATIONS. THOSE LAWS COVER FOREIGN TOURISTS AND GUESTS BUT DO NOT COVER SETTLED PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS.
        THEY ARE THE ONES WHOSE CHILDREN ARE BORN AND RAISED IN AMERICA AS AMERICANS. CHILDREN BORN OF VISITORS ARE RAISED IN THE PARENTS’ HOMELAND AS ITS CITIZENS. HENCE THE DIFFERENCE IN STATUS AND TREATMENT.
        BUT THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THAT TRUTH FULLY BECAUSE IT FAILS TO BE AWARE OF THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED. THEY HAVE BEEN LONG FORGOTTEN AND THERE IS NO ONE AROUND TO TEACH THEM.
        UNCLE SAM KNOWS HE CAN’T DRAFT FOREIGN VISITORS BUT FAILS TO GRASP THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THAT FACT AND THE TRUTH THAT CHILDREN BORN TO THEM WHILE HERE TEMPORARILY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO HIS AUTHORITY ANYMORE THAN ARE THEIR FATHERS.
        NEITHER IS SUBJECT BECAUSE SUBJECTION FLOWS FROM THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY DOWNWARD, AND THE HEAD IS NOT SUBJECT. A CHILD CAN’T BE SUBJECT WHILE HIS HEAD IS NOT. THAT VIOLATES THE NATURE OF HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE THE FOUNDATION OF SOCIETIES. “AS IS THE FATHER, SO IS THE SON”.

        THAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT NATURAL LAW THAT OUR NATION IS MEANT TO RECOGNIZE AND FOLLOW, BUT IT DOES NOT BECAUSE OF LONG-STANDING IGNORANCE. THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN, AND MAY NEVER AGAIN BE RECOGNIZED BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.]

        The status of the father’s citizenship is irrelevant in determing the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1. In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)

        As such, the citizenship of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. “ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)
        (internal citation omitted)

  8. Atticus Finch says:

    You wrote:” [A DIRECT AND EGREGIOUS VIOLATION OF THE LAW OF NATIONS, WHICH LAW THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWED IN ITS TOTALITY. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT OPPOSED TO THE DEATH THE DOCTRINE OF PERMANENT ALLEGIANCE AND EVEN WENT TO WAR AGAINST THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH BECAUSE OF IT (THE WAR OF 1812)]”

    Reply:

    Of course the founding fathers were familiar with Vattel who was a scholar on INTERNATIONAL LAW; however as to MUNICIPAL LAW or DOMESTIC LAW he was not the source of our statutes regarding citizenship which is in the providence of a nation’s municipal law. “Citizenship depends, however, entirely on municipal law and is not regulated by international law. “ Tomasicchio v. Acheson, 98 F. Supp. 166, 169 (DC 1951).

    [WHO MENTIONED VATTEL? THE LAW OF NATIONS IS A LIST OF BEHAVIORS THAT NATIONS MUST PERFORM OR AVOID IN THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER NATIONS. IT IS NOT A TERM SYNONYMOUS WITH THE WRITING OF VATTEL. HE IS NOT RELEVANT TO ITS EXISTENCE. IT EXISTED FOR A THOUSAND YEARS BEFORE HIM.
    By its principles, no nation has the legitimate authority to command that the children born of foreign settlers must be permanent subjects (for life) of the present monarch since the parents may reside in his domain for only a limited matter of time and then return home.. The nationality of the children born abroad of such a father can only legitimately follow his nationality since they are his and of him and like him in their status in this world.]

    “Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has held that our citizenship laws were inherited from English common law. “Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant.”

    [NO OPINION CAN SUBSTITUTE FOR THE TRUTH OR FOR FACTS. That statement is not LAW. It is merely expressed opinion and it is false, factually incorrect. Why? Because it refers solely to naturalization, which did not exist in England. Our concept of citizenship was NOT INHERITED FROM ENGLAND because they had NO CONCEPT of citizenship. We were total opponents of the English monarch’s system of subjection to royal authority for life based merely on happenstance of birth location. And, as I’ve been informed, by the Nationality Act of 1772, British subjects were deemed to be natural subjects only via birth to an English father. (nationality determined by descent from an Englishman, -not a foreigner. The children of foreigners were equal to natural subjects but that did not make them natural subjects.]

    “We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

    [THAT IS PURE CRAP. A FIGMENT OF HIS WILD IMAGINATION, OR WISHFUL THINKING. NO ENGLISH CONCEPT HAD A PLACE IN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP SINCE ALL ENGLISH CONCEPTS WERE BASED ON OBEDIENCE TO AND OWNERSHIP BY THE KING AS MONARCH AND HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, BEING GOD’S REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY ON EARTH. The monarchy system and its human ownership was utterly rejected by the Americans (except on the plantation where children of slaves were slaves also via jus sanguinis, and at the same time slaves via jus soli because they were property born on the master’s estate) except for the loyalist sycophants of the Empire who gladly traded security for liberty. Everyone who embraces that system (jus soli for all) embraces government ownership of all citizens, who hence are not true citizens since they would be subjects of the state.]

    “Nowhere in over 200 years of court opinions have had any court suggested that our citizenship law was based on Vattel’s concept of citizenship. In fact, there are many court cases that held that children born in the United States to parents other than citizen parents are natural born citizens. “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States. Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F. 3d 1017, 1019 (6th Cir. 1999). “Abdel-Karim A. El-Nobani is a legal resident of the United States, is married to a natural born United States citizen, and is the father of two natural born United States citizens, ages two and eight, respectively. He was born in Jordan and moved to the United States in 1988. El-Nobani became a permanent resident of the United States in 1993.” US v. El-Nobani, 145 F. Supp. 2d 906, 909 (ND OH 2001)

    [NOTICE THE AUTHORITY CITED TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM? THERE IS NONE BECAUSE NONE EXISTS. HE MADE THE WHOLE PILE UP OUT OF THE THIN AIR OF HIS IMAGINATION. HIS CHOICE OF WORDS REFLECT THE BASTARDIZATION OF THE CITIZENSHIP TERMS. SEE MY LATEST EXPOSITION: “THE HISTORY & MEANING OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”]

    “As for the drafting of the Constitution, Blackstone’s influence is noted throughout the document, such as, Law of Nations clause in which it was noted: “”In the fourth volume of his Commentaries, Blackstone has a chapter on “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Guided by Blackstone, the Founding Generation viewed the law of nations as a system of rules deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world. Justice Story would later put it, “every doctrine that may be fairly deduced by correct reasoning from the rights and duties of nations, and the nature of moral obligation, may be said to exist in the law of nations.” 3 Dartmouth C. Undergraduate J.L. 51 (2005)

    Another example of Blackstone’ influence “The universal maxim of the common law of England, as Sir William Blackstone expresses it, `that no man is to be brought into jeopardy of his life more than once for the same offence,’ is embraced in article V of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and in the constitutions of several States, in the following language: `Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;’ and in many other States the same principle is incorporated in the organic law, Kepner v. United States, 195 US 100, 132 (1904)”

    [BLACKSTONE’S INFLUENCE COVERED HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW, -AND THE RIGHTS & DUTIES OF NATIONS. HE COULD NOT AND DID NOT WRITE ABOUT CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE IT DID NOT EXIST IN HIS WORLD IN WHICH HE WAS A LOYAL SYCOPHANTIC SUPPORTER OF HIS ROYAL MAJESTY. HE DIDN’T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE IT HAD NO ROOTS IN ENGLISH LAW OR TRADITION.]

    “As for Vattel’s contribution to the Constitution, there has not been one decision in which a court has cited Vattel’s influence on drafting of the CONSTITUTION. This is not to say that courts have not cited Vattel on the INTERNATIONAL LAW in which his book “Law of Nations” have been cited by the courts but as to the CONSTITUTION AND MUNICIPAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, Vattel’s influence was nonexistent.”

    [VATTEL WAS ONE OF, OR THE FAVORITE AUTHOR THAT THE FRAMERS TOOK TO HEART. LACK OF ANY REFERENCE TO THAT FACT IS IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS TRUE. WHAT JUDGES HAVE REFERENCED OR NOT IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF VATTEL’S INFLUENCE ON WHAT WENT INTO THE CONSTITUTION. BUT THERE IS NO REASON TO THINK THAT HE WROTE ANYTHING ABOUT FREE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICS SINCE HE, SIMILAR TO BLACKSTONE, WAS A HUGE SUPPORTER OF THE KING OF FRANCE AND FELT THAT THE FRENCH STATE SHOULD BE EVEN MORE CONTROLLED BY THE STATE CHURCH.
    WHAT WOULD SUCH A PERSON KNOW ABOUT FREEDOM AND SELF-GOVERNANCE? NOTHING. NOR ABOUT SUCH A THING AS A PRESIDENCY. SO YOU ARE CORRECT TO BELIEVE THAT HE HAD NO INFLUENCE ON THE AUTHORING OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY.
    INSTEAD IT WAS BASED ON THE ACTUAL MEANING OF THE WORDS USED, WHICH WAS IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE BASTARDIZED MEANING OF THE WORDS, AS HAPPENED IN ENGLAND. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TERM “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” IS NOT AND WAS NOT A LEGAL “TERM OF ART”. THOSE WORDS CARRIED ONLY THEIR ENGLISH LANGUAGE MEANING.

  9. arnash says:

    Atticus Finch quoted me: “They are not subject to the absolute full jurisdiction of the national government as are citizens and IMMIGRANTS. As such, any child fathered by them is not born subject to that authority either but solely to the government of its foreign father.”

    Atticus wrote: “United States does not share its jurisdiction of persons LIVING IN the United States with another country.”

    LIVING IN means immigrants. It does not mean visiting. “NON-IMMIGRANT ALIENS” (as the government calls them) are not subject to the American government, nor are children brought with them, nor born of them while visiting here as our guests. They are all foreigners. The Wong holding only covered children of immigrants, not tourists, or temporary guests.

    Atticus quoted:
    ” one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States;
    BUT WHO EXACTLY IS SUBJECT? Only children born of citizens or immigrants.

    ” A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution.”

    THAT IS A LAME-BRAIN, JUVENILE, LAZY OVER-SIMPLIFICATION OF THE TRUTH. BUT IT IS ALMOST THE TRUTH SINCE THE NUMBER OF BIRTHS TO NON-IMMIGRANT ALIENS IS MICROSCOPIC (relatively speaking) BUT THAT DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO SIMPLY DECLARE THAT WE CAN ROUND OFF THE RULE TO INCLUDE EVERYONE BORN HERE.

    SUCH A LAZY-ASS SIMPLETON APPROACH JUTS HALF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT BY THROWING OUT THE SUBJECTION REQUIREMENT. THAT IS EASY TO DO WHEN YOU DON’T REALIZE THAT YOU DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANS.
    “IGNORE THE UNKNOWN” IS THE GENERAL ATTITUDE, BUT THAT LEADS ONE TO A FALSE ASSUMPTION. AND WHEN YOU WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT, AND HAVE A SOAP BOX PLATFORM FROM WHICH TO DISPENSE YOUR IGNORANT VIEW, THEN FOLKS WILL NATURALLY ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU WILL EVEN CONVINCE YOURSELF. BEING A SIMPLETON IS EASY. YOU DON’T HAVE TO THINK. JUST ABSORB WHAT OTHERS SAY AS THOUGH IT IS ALL GOSPEL.

    • A “Natural-Born Citizen” is one with the highest level of citizenship attainable. Birth in a Country AND having parents who are BOTH Citizens of said country. Jus Soli and 100% Jus Sanquinis. NO OTHERS can be POTUS.

      • arnash says:

        Natural citizens do not attain citizenship. They are born being citizens. And the nation is populated by 97% natural born citizens. Only a small percentage of Americans are not born to American parents. So how is anything “high” “attained”? All citizens are natural citizens in the eyes of the government of the United States. That is our American doctrine.

  10. The Naturalization Act of 1790 was later amended and REMOVED the provision that the Children of Americans citizens born beyond the sea or outside of the U.S. should be considered Natural-Born Citizens. In any event it never said that these children WERE Natural-Born. It said that they “Should be considered”. That is no longer the Law. By it’s very name such children were Naturalized citizens (Statutory) and NOT “Natural-Born”.

    • arnash says:

      Check the language used in the preceding sentence and in other versions of the act. They use the same language when referring to those who are not just treated as Americans but undoubtedly are.
      The first Congress was the founder’s and framers’ Congress. They wanted everyone to know that American children are Americans no matter where on earth they are born. That government has no place or authority over their citizenship. That is a fundamental unalienable right of all children of American parents.
      But your idea that there are different brands of citizens is false because of the fundamental fiction of American citizenship law known as the doctrine of equivalency. By it all citizens are absolutely equal. That is why after eighty years of Congress thinking that is could rescind American citizenship given to naturalized foreigners, all treaties but one that dictated terms of residency that could cost one their citizenship were nullified. Congress was exercising an authority that it did not own because it only has the authority to grant citizenship, not withdraw it for non-expatriating conduct. The government was wrong for four generations, and got kicked in the behind by the Supreme Court which declared such law unconstitutional.

      • The Founders did NOT want anyone other than a “Natural-Born Citizen to be POTUS. Citizenship can be attained by Naturalization but ” Natural-Born” Citizenship can never be granted to or attained by those who are not “Natural-Born”. Labeling those who are NOT “Natural-Born” as “Natural-Born” will NOT make them so. The Statement made that “all citizens are natural citizens” is simply not the case. All Trees are Plants but all plants are NOT trees. ALL Natural Born Citizens are citizens but not all citizens are Natural-Born. Lumping Natural-Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens as one group would be repugnant to the Constitution and any legislation that does so is null and void.

      • arnash says:

        You need to read further in order to get the full story. I’m presently working on my latest final exposition explaining the history and nature of American citizenship. In it, as in several before it, you will learn why all citizens are viewed by American doctrine to be natural citizens. The idea that America recognizes two basic kinds of citizens is false. (provisional citizenship is not basic.)
        There is only one type of citizen in the eyes of the American government’s fundamental principles. It is natural citizens. One is either born as one or one becomes one via natural-ization.
        Natural citizenship by birth is dependent on only one thing: birth. -NOT geography.

        Read further. Don’t stop.

      • arnash says:

        There is no such a thing as “natural-born” in relationship to citizenship. You need to stop using that terminology because it’s backed by nothing in the real world. There are only “natural citizens” but they come in two types:real and artificial; and there are “born citizens” but they also come in two types; -those born of Americans and those born of foreigners.

        To avoid having a President that was an artificial natural citizen or was a foreigner-born citizen-from-birth, the two terms had to be combined, which was done when John Jay wrote to Washington and underlined the word “born”.

        The President must be no one who was not born as a natural citizen. A natural citizen via the fiction of law known as the doctrine of citizenship equivalency was not to be allowed since they are all either former foreigners or were born of foreigners. One must be a natural citizen by birth; -a born natural citizen.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: