Native-birth as U.S. Law; Fact or Fiction?

Ballantine wrote: “he insists that his theory has always been our law even though he can’t cite any authority to support such. “

The problem is that I insist that it has never been our law.  I insist that we never had a law because one was never needed since natural citizenship is fully natural and doesn’t require the intervention of government lawmaking.  It’s automatic by the function of our fundamental principles.

“We have cited 4 Supreme Court cases expressly saying he is wrong.”

And yet you cannot show a single one that has ever elucidated any principle that any government dictate has ever pointed to.  It is all 100% claims of historical precedent, -precedents which are not inscribed in our Constitution or law anywhere, regardless of the pontifications of fools who dared to proclaim what our reality is when their presumptions were just that, and not fact.

I’m surprised at how often I’ve learned something that I never knew was true.  Just a day ago I was writing the word height, but my mind was thinking of a variation that I’ve been familiar with all my life, -it being the same word but with the ending pronounced with a “th” sound, instead of a hard “t” sound.  I’ve always distinguished the two but couldn’t and hadn’t ever spelled it; higth? highth? heigth?  heighth?  nothing made sense so I called my local sister and she instantly went online and read what she found.  The pronunciation I’ve known and used all of my life was mentioned as something native to California.(?!) That’s why it wasn’t even mentioned in the dictionary. It doesn’t exist except in the minds of those who have absorbed it from their “local” environment.

You think that what you have always “known” must be true and accurate, and yet it may be completely otherwise, -as Einstein discovered regarding the size of the real universe (not limited to the Milky Way alone but hundreds of billions of times larger).

“not a single person who was involved in the drafting of the 14th Amendment even mentioned a rule of descent as part of American citizenship law”

They couldn’t because they were unaware of it, or so it seems.  Natural citizens, like themselves, probably never knew a single American who was not born in America. Hence the conflation that resulted from the concurrent overlap of native-birth with natural inheritance.  If both are present at the same time, how do you ascribe to one or the other the power to make one a citizen?  Simple, you just acknowledge the meaning of the word “natural”.  “My natural child.”  Does that mean any child born under my roof (birth location) or a child born of my flesh?  If a child born elsewhere, like in a hospital, (abroad) not my natural child?

“they pretty much all said …they said, they said, they said…”

They all expressed their absorbed views which were nothing beyond being opinions.  You embrace claims as if claims are facts.  Okay, here’s one you should take to the bank.  My mother was Miss America and I was Mr. Universe.  I stake my reputation on it.  Therefore it must be true.  I’m an authority on me so one must take my word as being authoritative.

Speaking of which, no sane person can claim with an ounce of legitimacy that the Supreme Court, (or its justices) is authoritative.  That would reveal a total lack of understanding of what authoritative even means.  It is grounded on certainty. Unequivocal fact and logic, backed-up by much experience in the real world.

That essentially never describes what the court provides since opinions coming from it are from opposite ends of the spectrum.  The majority side has no more credibility than the minority side.  One can only have a decent level of confidence when a unanimous or near unanimous ruling is arrive at.

How many of the vaunted citizenship opinions (holdings) were unanimous?  Who gets to impugn the reasonableness of those fellow justices who are in the minority on an issue?  What god has the right and duty to call their views stupid, flawed, or erroneous?

Whenever someone says that the Supreme Court says this or that, one needs to question their grasp of  how human society works, unless they are referring to a unanimous holding.  That truly reflects the opinion of the court.  Split decisions do not settle matters of fact, only matters of opinion.  Only unanimous opinions reflect “authoritative” rulings.

Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the citizenship clause to Congress made some awfully bad statements due to his misconceptions and word choices:

“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws…..”  [He tied subjection not to the national authority but rather to sovereign state authority.  Curious.]

His phraseology was backwards.  Would one say: “An Indian is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of a tribal nation and subject to tribal law.”?

A third grader might come up with such a word order, but it should be the opposite; “One born within the limits of a tribal nation and subject to its law is held by the courts to be: an Indian.”  Even that is horrible since it should follow the only realistic pattern by ascribing an Indian nature to children born only of Indians.

“They became such in virtue of national law (the Civil Rights Act of 1866), or rather of NATURAL LAW which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country.”

There he went right off the tracks.  Natural Law dictates that off-spring are the same as the parents that produce them, -just as in all of nature for all eternity.  He then demonstrates his ignorance by conflating and confusing to completely different subjects and did so because they both employ the same ambiguous word; “jurisdiction”.

He should have described persons born under the jurisdiction (the authority) of every country but instead he mistakenly switched to geographical location of their birth which came out as “within” the jurisdiction.  People! Two completely separate issues.

Children of invaders and ambassadors and tourists and Gypsies and Indians could be born “within” the boundaries, limits, jurisdiction of a country and yet are not under its authority, -its jurisdiction. Not be in subjection to it, and thus not be a subject nor a citizen.  That was a very elementary error due to not parsing the ambiguous nature of the language employed.

“But I held that, (in the sense of the Constitution) every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard,

Wow! Talk about an ignorant presumption backed by no quoted laws nor any natural principle of human life!  The Constitution makes no reference to birth within limits of any state.  What moonshine was he drinking?  He just blustered on as if his concepts were reflective of reality when in fact they were detached from it.

“Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries”?

Sure, if you are a pathetic subject of royal dictators as in all monarch-ruled nations.  He failed to do what his ancestors had done when they risked everything for liberty; they rejected that whole system of assigning national membership based on the Divine Rights of Kings.

Notice the sweeping expanse of his baseless claim, -embracing the logical location of one’s birth while rejecting the nationality of one’s parents.  It required a gigantic leap of presumption to conceive that the father is irrelevant to what his son is, and has no actual connection to him and the membership he is born with, -supposedly inheriting nothing from his father.

Members give birth to members regardless of birth location.  Natives give birth to natives regardless of a native territory location.  Almost 100% of the native-born  are natural natives.  But some are not because they were born of outsiders, -aliens.

The vast sea of natural citizens of a nation are like a huge herd of bison which is behind the back of those on the outer edge, and not seen because all attention it drawn to the odd creatures out in front who are very unusual by comparison, -they being foreigners and their children, They get all of the legal attention and discussion and focus because they are not natural members of the unnoticed herd, and its debatable as to how to treat them.

It is felt by some that since they were born in the bison’ territory that they should be considered as honorary bison.  But they have no inherent right to be accepted and made equals.  It is simply a benevolence of the herd.  Their gift of membership among the herd is legal membership; -not natural membership.  Their native birth gives them no natural rights whatsoever.  They are not natural bison.

“It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State.”

What a statist ignoramus!  “all nations”?  He means all monarchist dictatorships!  Their subjects are anyone born on their land.  In a nation founded on liberty, there is no royal ownership of subjects because there is neither royalty nor subjects, so no one is born on the land of a dictator (except slaves of course).

“citizens of the state”?  What other nation even had citizens except perhaps in the perverted and failed revolution of the French?  What other nation was free and founded on a written Constitution and Bill of Rights?  None practiced national democracy except for little Switzerland.

“They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State.”

They owe the state nothing except to obey its laws.  What they owe is their personal participation in any effort needed to defend the nation and its people.  They are not “entitled” to protection as a right that the state must provide because they are the state!

The men of the nation owe the women and children and elderly protection and they are obligated to fulfill that obligation while they are young and able.  But State citizens may be expected or allowed to serve in the state militia up until their mid-forties.

“Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or not. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law.” Rep. Thayer,

“principle of law”?  What law?  There is no such law except in monarchical kingdoms.  Principle?  What principle?  The one that declares that every soul born on the dictators land belongs to him for life?  That is not a principle!  It is a royal dictate, an autocratic policy.  It was not even an actual law in the mother country of Britain and that is why no one ever cites one.

“Mr. Justice Curtis held that the Constitution of the United States assumes that citizenship can be acquired by nativity.”

The Constitution?  It “assumes” no such thing because it says no such thing.  It says nothing at all about citizenship and how it is “acquired”.  He just made things up out of his own deluded imagination.

Citizenship is not “acquired” by natural citizens.  (They are born being citizens) It is only acquired via law that covers children born of foreigners or naturalizing foreigners.

““Now where is the authority to except [exempt] the native-born African from the application of the general rule of law that every native shall be a citizen of the country on whose soil he is born?” Rep. Raymond,

If the native-born African is the child of an African ambassador, or African tourist, -or African athlete, or African student,..

the general rule of law..”  Rules are not “laws”!  That being the case, there was no law because a general rule is merely a policy.

“What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall,

What a treasonous and dangerous idea.  It betrays our Declaration of Independence completely and the foundational principles of our nation.  He puts the government above the People.  He makes it an ultimate entity like the State Dominion of royal dictators.  The government owns you?  No, you own the government, and it owes you, the People, its allegiance.

No oath of office is an oath to protect the government.  It is an oath to protect the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) from people with such views (domestic enemies of liberty).

“and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born.”

The extent of his citizenship delusion is revealed by his falling-back into colonial thinking about it, conflating “native-born citizen” with one born as a natural citizen.  To believe in the world-view of citizenship that suffused his thinking, one must be oblivious to the reality of the natural citizenship of natural citizens. (do an advance search using exact words selection)

Notice that he confirms what I’ve heard no one else other than myself proclaim, namely that is was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, -but he assumed the opposite of natural citizenship was the “rule” merely because it had been so in the colonial empire of the royal dictator.

Not having read the first constitutions of the 13 states I cannot say how many of them allowed common law citizenship to continue as it had from their founding, but I suspect it was most or all.  That native-birth common law citizenship for foreigners’ children colored his whole perspective on the matter.

“This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it.”

That is right, but the law he referred to was the just recently passed Civil Rights Act of 1866.  The 14th Amendment language merely reiterated its declaration but did so as part of the Constitution after its fraudulent ratification.  And what did that act declare?  That native-born children not subject to any foreign power were US citizens.  Well children are subject only to their father, so to be subject to a foreign power meant they were born of a father who was subject.  But foreign visitors are subject to their own foreign government and so their native-born child is as well.  Thus citizenship should not be ascribed to them since native-birth alone is insufficient, as was realized regarding children of Native Americans. Hence the change of wording in the amendment.

“We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition,..”

What he means is general policy or presumed rule, –not law.  And it was not recognized by the U.S. government as manifested in the Wong appeal by the U.S. government to over-turn his citizenship.  How could it have been a “settled issue” when the government opposed it?

“and that must lead to a conclusion [-to an opinion, -not to a fact] that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States…” Rep. Wilson.

Opinions are not facts, even when they are erroneously presumed to be facts. What is significant in that statement is that such native-born “citizens” are not called natural born citizens of the United States but of “such States”.  Their natural citizenship was first and foremost State citizenship because at that time the sovereignty of the States had not been so fully stolen as came to pass in time.

“The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. ..-the children of foreign ministers … By a fiction of law such persons [foreign ministers] are not supposed to be [supposedly not] residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States.” Senator Wade

The fiction of law only exist as a theoretical doctrine because there is no principle in the common law that provides an exception to subjection for all native-born souls.  So one had to be invented out of thin air by ignorant men who were unaware that children of ambassadors inherit their father’s nationality and their fathers are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction by treaty and the law of nations.  Thus, neither are their children.  They are subject, like foreign tourists or students, or visitors, solely to their own government.  The place of their exiting their mother’s womb is irrelevant.

by Adrien Nash  2013  obama–