The Nature of Human Origin and Citizenship
July 21, 2013 Leave a comment
When Richard Nixon’s childhood home was being prepared as a historical site during his Vice-Presidency, his mother gave an interview that has since been deep-sixed because in it she stated that he was actually not born in the house but in a hospital. That statement had to go away because the narrative surrounding the home was that it was Richard’s birth place, and so it was never repeated or referred to. After all, a home as the birth place of a statesman is something that could inspire people to make a “pilgrimage” in order to see it, like visiting a presidential library. But a hospital? No one makes a pilgrimage to a hospital.
His origin was directly tied to that house and that was part of what gave it its importance. The log cabin in which Lincoln was born had a similar historical tie to him, and became an important element in the story of America.
Where you were born is forever tied to your origin in this world but it is not forever tied to you personally because you may have left that place, that city, that state, or nation and never returned. But you are very personally tied to your true origin in life, and that is the woman in whose womb you developed and who gave birth to you.
That is a real and direct connection that is not tied to any place. Many adoptees long to reestablish that biological connection because in that sense they are a part of another person, or persons if the father is also recognized. They were the source of one’s make-up, one’s constitution even if very different personality-wise. Traits can be inherited that go back many generations and even skip generations.
We are all tied to our origin (and it is biological) -and is not necessarily the place of our origin or entry into this world. If you were born and raised in a certain place, you think that you are of that place, but the reality is that it’s more complicated than that. You are not of the place where you were born if you were not raised there, but instead you are of a different origin. That origin is revealed by a series of questions.
“Is this your home?” “Yes” “Why is it your home?” “Because I live here and was born here.” “Why were you born here?” “Because this is where my parents chose to live” “What if they had chosen to live somewhere else, would this place still be your home?” “Of course not. It’s my home because this is where I’m from.” “So if you didn’t live here then you would be from somewhere else?” “Of course.” “What would that place have in common with this place?” “It would be where my parents chose to live.” “So your parents are the factor that would be common to wherever they choose to live?” “Of course.” “So your parents are the factor that determines your origin in this world?” “Of course.” “So wherever one might be born, their parents are the one unchanging factor in that origin?” “Yes, that’s true.” “Is it not also true that your parents are your one unchanging origin and the source of your life and survival?” “Sure.” “So isn’t it more accurate to say that instead of being of a certain place, you are, in fact, of your parents and not like an Orc, -of the soil?” “Well yeah, when you put it that way.”
“So regardless of the existence of nations or borders or national sovereignty over ships, planes or foreign territories, are one’s parents ever not the central and only source of their origin?” “Hmmm, I guess I’d have to say ‘no'”. “So would you agree that you are ‘of’ them and not of geography -whether physical or political?” “Yes, I’d agree.” “Even if government is completely removed from the picture?” “Well, government isn’t my parent and so I’d have to say it’s not my origin either, -so yes, I’m still the product of only my parents whether or not government exists.”
“The government of the nation of which your parents are members, -is it your government also and did it own you upon your birth?” “It didn’t own me because my parents “owned” me, but it’s my government also because it’s the authority that we live under.”
“Did you need its permission to be born?” “Of course not!” “Did you need its permission to be accepted as a new member of your parents’ homeland, -or were you born being a member automatically or naturally?” “I’ve never heard of needing permission to be what you were born as.” “So you are assuming that the government doesn’t have the authority to reject you (or any baby) and bar you from being a member of your parents’ country?” “It better not have that authority, and I reject any such authority to reject me or any child of parents who are members of their own country. Who would give people in government such authority or write such an authority into law? They’d have to be insane!”
“So you assume that you are automatically a member of your parents’ country, -a citizen of their nation?” “Absolutely.” “Even if you were born in Antarctica which no nation owns? Would that make you a stateless person in principle since you wouldn’t have been born in your parents’ country?” “Only in a crazy world, -a world with no common sense. If I wasn’t considered a member of my parents’ country and a citizen of their nation just because I exited my mother’s womb somewhere other than their homeland, then that would mean that the government has permission to reject me and anyone like me, including hundreds of thousands of Americans born outside of the United States over the years. By what sane principle could any sane person insist that government has such authority, or worse yet, that it was given such authority in the first place by very sane founders? What civil government claims the authority to reject its own? I’ll bet you can’t name one because none exist.”
The Limits of Civil Government
No civil government claims such a fundamental authority, -but they do exercise the authority of discretion to insure that children born abroad truly are “one of their own” and not foreigners. Those who are foreign-born children of national members are afforded by statute the protection of their inherited membership just as the baby of Princess Kate and William will be afforded the protection of its inherited royalty. It’s royal status, like its citizenship, is a birthright inheritance from a royal British father.
There is no authority that can reject its membership as a subject of Britain nor to reject its royal-ness. Similarly, there is no authority in the Constitution given to Congress to reject the natural national membership of American children born beyond American borders.
Their only given authority was to write a uniform rule of naturalization to establish a single national naturalization standard. That authority only covered the character of foreigners, -not the children of Americans. American children, born anywhere on the planet or even off the planet, are NOT foreigners but are Americans because they are born being Americans by nature, -by inherited political nature, just like the new royal baby; -born being royal regardless of the location of its birth.
Its national or political character is the result not of laws but of natural “transmission” ascribed to the process of pro-creation, attended by all of the connections that come with birth to people who belong to something. Those connections, like an umbilical cord, tie them to their parents and the connections that their parents are tied to, whether they be social, religious, ethnic, racial, or national.
Off-spring are tied to their parents’ world and those ties can only be cut by a willful deliberate decision, such as voluntary expatriation. The divorcing of one’s own country. The country, if it’s the United States, lacks the authority to expatriate one of its own, just as a mother cannot alter the fact of being one’s mother no matter how she feels about her child. It is still hers.
That is true of mothers & fathers as well as of the United States since the children of both are naturally connected to their parents and their parents’ nation. That’s Natural Law, and it supercedes the given law of men who must fashion and foster a sane, smoothly functioning society and government based on eternal principles that are an innate part the nature of humans as well as animals. Children are of their parents and one day replace their parents in the absence of any rules or laws or governments, becoming what they were via birth to them. That is the truth about families, tribes, countries, and nations.
Life doesn’t need government to exist, nor do natural relationships, one of which is natural membership. Membership in a nation is known as citizenship and it is passed from parents to children as their inherited political nature. It isn’t the result of government and it cannot be prevented nor altered nor regulated nor rescinded by government. The government is not the master of those who are its creator. Rather, they are the masters of the government and remain as such until they fall into the somnambulism of indifference, apathy, or dependency. Which is where we are today.
by Adrien Nash July 2013 obama–nation.com
Sen. Daniel Webster wrote: “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of “good intentions”. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to GOVERN. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be MASTERS.”