Comments of Significant Substance
August 11, 2013 Leave a comment
Ballantine wrote: “The facts are that all our states adopted the common law and all early citizenship law looked to the common law. Let me know how many authorities you would like me to cite.”
How about one to start with. You claim is just a claim, but even if you could cite an “authority” the question would be “what makes you think that they were truly an authority regarding all of the other states in which they were not born, did not live nor work nor study nor do business?”
Undoubtedly, the colonies continued following the common law regarding civil cases brought before courts, but membership is not a civil matter. It’s a primal matter. A matter of belonging. Do you belong to the government or does the government belong to you? Many in the colonies, including many, many lawyers steeped in British law, were unable to grasp what had happened on the philosophical level in the new nation. A revolution had taken place in the fundamental role and relationship of what had always previously been “subjects”. After July 4, 1776, the only subjects still remaining in America were loyalists. Everyone else became something different. They became independent, autonomous, self-governed and self-protected CITIZENS.
Citizens are not subjects, and nothing in the common law has any remote connection to their relationship to their nation. You think of citizens like con-jointed twins of subjects, but in fact they are only distant cousins.
Self-owned, self-ruled, self-governed and self-defended independent men and States. At that fundamental level of State philosophy, all of the old relationships and identities were abolished. A new kind of creation emerged in America, and it rejected the reign of monarchs and dictators. It was not a slave to its previous master nor to the system by which he declared ownership over all those born within his property. Jus soli was dead as a mandate, but remained in some states as a gift of reasonable and beneficial self-interest. Such states did not want their native-born & raised members to be viewed as and treated as aliens or subjects or second-class “citizens” without the rights of citizens. So they were given citizenship with no strings attached.
But in other states, all of the attention was on the mind-set of the father. Did he intend to become an American or remain a foreigner? By becoming an American then his children also automatically obtained citizenship through their jus sanguinis connection to him.
By choosing to not be an American, he signaled to the state that he was not raising his children as Americans but as foreigners like himself. What sane society feels a duty to accept those inculcated with foreign ideology as being one of them? Hence, jus soli was not a government policy that such a society would see fit to continue after they were liberated from their previous tyranny.
Mario Apuzzo. You state that natural law and human law work together to confirm individual rights and obligations, and yet that is not the case in a literal sense. Fundamental obligations are not spelled-out in any philosophical manner in human law. The reason that government can conscript men and send them to their death in battle is not spell-out anywhere, and hence not “confirmed”. It does not need to be because it is Primal. A Priori. Such elements of life are never put into writing.
Where is it written that man has an inherent right of self-defense? It is not even written in the Bill of Rights because is to too fundamental to need to be written. So also is the issue of belonging. Where is it written that parents own their own children and not Uncle Sam? Where is it written that families belong to their own clan? or State? or nation? No where. That is because such things are the bedrock beneath the foundation of nations. The foundation needs to be described, but the bedrock does not.
There will never be a law which states that children belong to their parents, nor to the group that their parents belong to, including their national group. That is because such a right does not come from government nor human law. It is from outside of the legal system. It is a psychological and sociological reality rooted in the very nature of sentient life. It does not come from government nor does it depend on it either. Government is what exists within its context. Not the other way around.
“in order to be a “citizen” in the Greek and Roman societies, one had to be born to “citizen” parents.” But why? You give no explanation, but I will. Because children belong to their parents and to whatever unit that their parents are members of. Their membership is a natural inheritance from their father. That is how most social beings on planet earth are wired. That is natural law. That law is not derived from human law. Rather, human law is derived from it.
That law has nothing whatsoever to do to the law that governs the relationships between nations (the law of nations).
“The new nation defined all those persons who became and who in the future would become members of the nation. The nation called one class of membership “citizen of the United States.”
Clearly, you are the one living in an imaginary realm. “the nation defined”? What hogwash. Not only did “the nation” not define anything, but neither did the framers since the nature of both natural citizenship and legal citizenship went completely UNdefined. Hence we are still talking about the matter.
I advise you to drop the theory that natural born citizens are not citizens of the United States but are separate and apart from them. Such warped logic can’t get past even a 5th grader. That’s like saying that poodles are not dogs because they are not the same as all other dogs.
“It decided that that status belonged only to children born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.” No such thing was ever “decided”, -not by the Constitutional Convention, nor by Congress or the Supreme Court, and hence all there is is speculation and presumption about a description describing those who undoubtedly are Americans by birth.
Are they the only Americans by birth? The first Congress, with many of the founders and framers serving in it, made sure that the nation understood that American children born outside of American borders were not only citizens, but wholly and completely American citizens by birth, even going so far as to label them as such so that all would know that what was missing from the Constitution was not deliberate but inadvertent because of the tiny size of the number of such children, one of which was a son of John Jay, who knew a thing or two about national allegiance. By their deliberate choice of words, the first Congress of the United States corrected the over-sight of the Constitution by ordering that all recognize American children born abroad as what they are, namely “natural born citizens”.
You, by promoting the dogma that you do, find yourself in the uncomfortable position of having to declare that they didn’t know what the hell they were doing, and were just plain stupid because what they did did not comform to your ideology about citizenship. Well, it’s not a toss-up. Your ideology has to give way to what they clearly believed and put into law with the expectation that it would remain in law in perpetuity. Regretably, it was placed where it did not rightfully belong since presidential eligibility is not the focus of a naturalization act, and hence the two descriptors “natural” and “born” were later excised for simplicity.
Such a stream-lining of future acts carries no implication whatsoever that by refraining from fully characterizing foreign born Americans as being citizens natural born, they were therefore deliberately though covertly “stating” that they were less than fully American and were therefore merely aliens being naturalized into American citizenship by Congress.
One has to be smoking hash to come to such a baseless assumption. The only focus of naturalization law is to identify them as being American born citizens, and not foreigners.
That is an obvious self-evident fact. You need to stop worshiping at the alter of the goddess of jus soli. She is a false god.
” it is this legal structure which gives these members…their confirmed rights and obligations.”
You’ve failed to learn what I’ve shown you about obligations. They are primal aspects of life, NOT something that the government imposes. They exist apart from government. All it does is require that men do their natural duty, which is to defend the defenseless and defend the country. That is a primal, tribal obligation which is also incorporated as a necessity of national survival.
So obligations are not “given” to citizens. They are born under them and they come to fruition at maturity. Then the state has the right to exercise FULL jurisdiction and conscript the unwilling into national service and see to it that they fulfill their duty as men and as citizens. It is better that they recognized their obligation and enlist instead. AN
“But in terms of federal citizenship, a broader category than ‘native-born’, would have to be used to make federal citizenship uniformed.”
A federal citizen was one born in the District of Columbia or on federal territory. Such a person was “stateless” in the sense of not having a home state. As for making “federal citizenship uniformed”, there was no such thing except in regard to foreigners who wished to be naturalized, along with children born to them. There was and is no national law governing the citizenship of the class of citizens that created the nation. Natural citizens created the government, the government does not create natural citizens. AN
“To me jus soli is native citizenship, which is state citizenship. If you are born in the state of Virginia, you were a son of the soil, a native Virginian,”
That is a very illuminating point. The States were semi-supreme, but actually supreme when it came to immigration and naturalization as long as their laws didn’t conflict with the national rule. Nativity and citizenship were directly tied not to the federal government but to the States, since native-birth citizenship follows no principle based on any human right.
No foreigner nor his children have an unalienable right to be accepted as members of a group to which he does not belong. The States with “son of the soil” citizenship provided something that such children had no inherent right to, so they were given the <i>legal</i> right to citizenship, even though they lacked the natural right.
There was no pre-WKA national “son of the soil” immigrant-child jus soli citizenship because the citizenship of the native-born was never addressed in federal legislation until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which citizen-ized freed slaves.
Most Americans self-identified by the State in which they were born and raised, and only when traveling abroad did they realize consciously that to foreign minds they were first and foremost Americans, -United States citizens instead of merely State citizens.
I saw that in boot camp which included people with almost nothing in common, yet to the Vietnamese, we were all Americans. AN
Slartibartfast : “You think that because Madison “was a Virginian first” that means he either didn’t know the difference between the national law he helped write…”
Your mind must be in a haze because you speak of a law that does not exist and never did. There has never been a national law spelling out the basis of citizenship in the United States. I repeat: BASIS, not mere description. Neither the CCA of 1866 nor the 14th A. spell out the basis of citizenship, and neither were written to address the national membership of the class of citizens that created the nation.
If someone creates a game and they are its referee, do they need to spell out what their role is? No, because they are the master of the game.
Same with the natural citizens that created the United States.
They did not need and weren’t dependent on a law created by their creation in order to be its creator and foundation. AN
Slart wrote: “The idea that there aren’t any countries for which geography, as you put it, is the determining factor in citizenship is what is asinine”
“aren’t any countries”? You’re mind is playing tricks on you because my statement says no such thing. It says that the policy is asinine, -not non-existent. Learn how to comprehend.
Here’s something you should realize; no nation has adopted jus soli as a basis of citizenship except those who were once slaves of a foreign power (colonies). That should tell you something about its source. Why do original nations not follow it? Because they have not been brain-washed by centuries of a bastardly doctrine derived from The Divine Right of Kings. AN
“well into the 19th century American legal authorities were still claiming jus soli to be the universal rule.”
“legal authorities”? Like the authorities on the Supreme Court who take diametrically opposite opinions? How non-authoritative is that?
“still claiming”? Sure, self-important men are always claiming things, but claims aren’t what is important. Only facts are important, and there pretty much aren’t many. But one fact has never changed, and that is that no child born of a father who was not subject to the government was considered to be a member of the nation.
Foreigners in America were not considered by the federal government to be subject to the full authority of the United States government until they became American citizens. That only changed following the realignment of relationship that followed the WKA holding.
After that, immigrants and their adult children could be drafted and sent to their death in war. If immigrant children were deemed to be citizens by SCOTUS then it meant that they were subject to U.S. jurisdiction through their fathers. Therefore their fathers shared the citizen’s duty to defend the nation. Being an immigrant-born native makes one an American citizen but does not make one a natural citizen. AN