Obama & U.S. Citizenship: Fact vs Fundamental Fiction
July 4, 2013 Leave a comment
If you were the son of a King, -a royal Prince, in the line of succession to the throne, but you weren’t a very upright person and sometimes did some things that cast disrepute on the royal family, would that disgrace result in making you a commoner? Would your behavior change your familial status and make you a non-royal person?
“Of course not!” you respond. “What you do doesn’t change who you are. You would still be a royal prince, albeit a lousy one.”
But what if you were an adopted son? Could your parents disown you if they didn’t like how you behaved? That question isn’t answerable quite so quickly since it’s more complicated. But there are only two possible answers, and they are both illustrated by the nationality doctrine and law of two nations; the United States and Kenya.
Kenya presented itself for comparison when I came across the draft version of its new Constitution. Its section on nationality was unremarkable and perfectly logical. You wouldn’t disagree with any of its conditions for revoking the citizenship of those where were naturalized Kenyans.
CHAPTER THREE; CITIZENSHIP
Revocation of citizenship
(1) If a person acquired citizenship by registration, the citizenship may be revoked if —
(a) the person acquired the citizenship by fraud, false representation or concealment of any material fact;
(b) the person has, during any war in which Kenya was engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with any business that was knowingly carried on in such a manner as to assist an enemy in that war;
(c) the person has, within five years after registration, been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or longer; or
(d) the person has, at any time after registration, been convicted of treason, or of an offence for which––
(i) a penalty of at least seven years imprisonment may be imposed; or
(ii) a more severe penalty may be imposed.
If you look for the equivalent regulation or provision for naturalized Americans you will never find it because it does not exist. It does not exist for a fundamental reason. Such regulations can never be written aside from the first one which involves swearing a false oath. That would be obtaining citizenship by fraud and fraud always nullifies the conditions of a contract or agreement. But all of the other offenses in Kenya involve what a person does after they have sincerely become new Kenyan citizens. They have no counterpart in America because one of our foundational principles is that we don’t disenfranchise or un-adopt an American citizen because of what they do since what they do does not change who and what they are. If they are Americans, nothing can change that, -no matter how bad a crime might be.
Which system is best, Kenya’s or America’s? Clearly, Kenya’s is pragmatic and practical, but America’s is idealistic and philosophical. What is the philosophy that America choose to follow back in the beginning of our nation? Was it based on what the King might have done, or Parliament, acting by imperial fiat and vindictiveness? [Did the British follow (on extremely rare occasions, if ever) a course that Kenya adopted some two centuries later?]
If there is an answer, it is extremely arcane and un-noted in the annuals of British legal history dispensed to students of British law. But in America the answer is known, though it is just as arcane and unknown in the history and study of American jurisprudence. No common person in a million would know the answer, which happens to be “no, it was not based on any pragmatic, arbitrary or vindictive rule”. Instead it was based on the American philosophy of Natural Law. That law contains a fundamental principle that one is what they are by birth and nothing can change that. But it goes one step further by adopting a fundamental fiction of law which views adoption as an irreversable permanent change in who a person is. The adoptive parents cannot then change who their child is simply because they do not like the way he has behaved. He is still a member of the family and must be treated as such, equally.
That fiction of law is known as citizenship equivalency. By it, all citizens are equal citizens; that is, all citizens, regardless of the source of their citizenship, are equivalent to natural American citizens, -those who are citizens by birth. In American history that meant that they had an American father because American wives were automatically American citizens if they married an American man even if they were foreigners who lived their whole previous life in their foreign homeland.
One’s citizenship or nationality was that of their father via patrilineal descent and it never changed involuntarily unless one was female and married a man from another country. That would result, depending on when in American history one refers to, in either gaining a second, foreign nationality or switching nationality to that of the husband and future father (whose children would take after him and not their mother). In fact, between 1907 and 1922 American women who married foreign men lost their American citizenship altogether, -making their children non-Americans like their father. [The Naturalization Act of 1907]
So in America, naturalized citizens were viewed in the eyes of the State Department, Immigration Service, and Attorney General’s office as natural Americans, -not naturalized Americans. Their citizenship could never be revoked because it was not something that they possessed. Rather, it was something that they were, -who and what they were. It couldn’t be changed anymore than a leopard can change its spots.
Under the law, all citizens are equal. Equal rights, equal privileges, equal protections, and equal responsibilities, -almost. In fact some were more equal than others because some were men. Why were they treated differently? Because they bore the full responsibility of citizenship whereas females enjoyed the full protection of citizenship. Meaning,.. men would have to fight and die to protect America while women, along with children, were the ones they were protecting. All able-bodies male adult citizens were subject to that responsibility and that is what made them equals even if some were foreign born, or foreigner born.
From the beginning of the nation, -and before, Americans only gave birth to Americans, and foreigners only gave birth to foreigners, -almost. That was the nation-wide tradition, with the exception of four of the colonies / States that bestowed the gift of citizenship on native-born children of their immigrants. But citizenship as a gift based on native-birth was never the tradition of Western civilization since that tradition was patriarchal in nature, and families thus had no members who were outsiders, i.e., aliens or people of another nationality, because families had only one nationality, and that was that of the father. That tradition is reflected in the citizenship clause of the Kenyan Constitution although it is unmentioned in ours.
Citizenship by birth
(1) A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen.
(2) Clause (1) applies equally to a person born before the effective date, [of independence] whether or not the person was born in Kenya, if either the mother or father of the person is or was a citizen.
Their adoption of a non-patriarchal approach is indicative of their social evolution regarding the rights of women. But putting that point aside, what’s noteworthy is that the place of one’s birth is irrelevant, while in the United States, everyone views domestic birth as being the basis of citizenship even though in fact it is not. That does have the exception though of those born to immigrants. Their children absolutely must be born in the United States or they are not deemed to be citizens per the 14th Amendment. But the other 97% are Americans regardless of where they are born because of those to whom they are born, -being born to Americans from whom they inherit their nationality. They are natural American citizens, -or as they are described in the Constitution, “natural born citizens”.
I said that nationality is not an issue covered in the U.S. Constitution, unlike the Kenyan Constitution, but it is addressed in regard to eligibility for public office. No one can hold public office if they are not American. That is discrimination. Discrimination is vital to national survival and national interests which are not of natural interest to foreign citizens to the same extent as to Americans, and so they are barred from public office. That is America’s natural resort to pragmatism and practicality. But the discrimination didn’t stop there because it went one step further when qualifying who would be eligible to wield the power of the Commander-in-Chief who happens to also be President.
The authors wisely decided to discriminated between those who are alien-born in America and those who are American born (anywhere). They decided to not take the risk of trusting the sons of foreigners to wield such power. They had fought, bleed, and suffered mightily at the hands of one tyrannical foreigner (King George III) and were not about to trust anyone who might be a secret devotee of his royal majesty, so they barred them from serving as President.
They required that the President be more than a natural citizen by our national fiction of law (rather than by nature), and so they ordered that he be born as a natural citizen rather than be legally-made into a natural citizen. They required that he be a “natural born citizen”, and every President since George Washington was just that with only two exceptions; Chester Arthur who hid the fact that his British father did not become naturalized until years after his son was born, and Barack Obama whose father was never naturalized, and in fact was never even an immigrant, making his son a Kenyan citizen by birth and not a natural citizen of the United States by birth.
But since he was half minority, spoke with an appealing voice and an inspiring message, everyone gave him a pass as they turned their backs on the United States Constitution and all of the men who fought, suffered, and died to free our country from the grip of tyranny, and to fashion a new charter of freedom that would inspire almost all of the other nations on earth to move from monarchy to democratic republican government.
But now, the birthplace of Freedom and the Rule of Law over the dictates of men & kings has degenerated into a farce of representative government that yields to the supremacy of law. Now Presidents, cabinet officers and their political, union, and union-protecting underlings, secret spy agencies, houses of Congress, and justices of the Supreme Court do whatever they want and almost always get away with it.
Only the diligence of awake, faithful watchmen and incensed and outraged victims of tyranny serves to staunch the covert tsunami of political and government corruption, criminality and injustice, much of which can be traced to the signals, words, and orders of the statist totalitarians in the Obama White House who put ideology far above country, honesty, and fidelity to the Constitution.
It remains to be seen if such power and arrogance can be limited by the efforts of a law and justice system that is corrupt at the very top. Only the disinfecting light of truth-made-public has any chance of effecting some solution. Such light will not be shed by our corruptly complicit lap-dog three-monkeys media.
Egypt is a nation that is totally awake, alive, and polarized. America is a nation that is asleep, indifferent, ignorant and narcotized. Polar opposites, but there are inevitable train-wrecks ahead that we are heading toward, and they will begin to awaken the attention of the masses like nothing else since the rise of the liberal messiah who was going to calm the oceans, heal the planet, reconcile foes and bring peace and harmony. But hopey-changey rhetoric is not reality and so the sheep of the American flock lost interest, -their balloon of hot-air inspiration deflated as they came to lose their unsupported high regard for the great Shepherd of the flock.
They don’t realized that their view of him has much further to fall. That will eventually come to pass due to the subpena power of Congress and the Freedom of Information Act. Inquiries will eventually reveal stunning degrees of non-feasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance by his administration, -as happened with President Nixon. Then the sleeping sheep will awake to discover that their faithful shepherd and his like-minded, marching-to-the-same-music comrades were all along treasonous wolves in shepherds clothing.
by A. R. Nash July 4th 2013 http://obama–nation.com