NATURALIZATION: The Key to Understanding Presidential Eligibility

   The founders of our nation, -the framers of our Constitution, the elected leaders who comprised our first Congress did a curious thing which has gone unexplained and misunderstood for a very long time.

   That Congress was charged by the Constitution with the task of writing a uniform rule of citizen-ization for making the laws of the States harmonious or uniform in at least a minimal way when it came to citizen-izing foreigners and their children.  It would answer nationwide the questions of: “how many years did one have to be a resident within the nation before becoming a citizen, and what type of person would be allowed to become a citizen?” (a free white person of good moral character)

   The Congress also had to address another issue which the Constitution was not designed to address, and that was the issue of the birth of Americans happening beyond U.S. borders.  In order for officers of the state governments, including  immigration officers, to be disabused of the notion that American children could be rendered foreigners, aliens, merely due to the happenstance of where they entered the world, -and worse, to be tarred for the rest of their life with the simple and irrelevant fact of that first instant of their existence in this world having occurred outside of America’s sacred and holy borders, -that needed to be addressed as well, and the citizen-ization act of 1790 seemed like a proper place to do it.

 

   And so it was done, and was expected to continue on in perpetuity.  But later Congresses were unaware of the impetus for writing what that first Congress wrote, and so they altered it to make it conform in a strict sense with the subject matter of a citizen-ization act.

   What did they alter?  They altered the words that the framers of the first act wrote into it to protect the right of all sons of American parents to serve their nation in every capacity possible.  If they had merely written what all future Congresses had passed, then that right would have been obscured and likely even unrecognized.  That could result in such sons being deprived of a birthright that was rightfully theirs as sons of Americans.

   The first citizen-ization act dealt first with foreigners who met the residency criteria, the character criteria, and who subsequently took the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation before a magistrate who had the authority to administer oaths.  Then, in the words of the act, they were to “be considered as citizens of the United States.”

   Next it addressed the children of such citizen-ized foreigners or foreign fathers and declared that, upon their father’s citizen-ization, they “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  Those chosen words do not mean that they shall be considered like citizens but that they in fact are citizens, -made so by the rule of law.

    But then the act addresses American children born beyond our borders but does so in an unexpected manner.  It changes the language used in describing who and what they are.  It avoids referring them as “citizens of the United States” but calls them something else, -something organic, -something beyond the authority of law and Congress.  It calls them “natural born citizens”.

     It should be noted that it also avoided calling them “natural born citizens of the United States”.  Why did it avoid that?  For two reasons.  The first is that by avoiding that, it left the language connected to only one other use of that limited term, and that use was its appearance in the presidential eligibility clause.  By its direct connection to the issue of presidential eligibility, the Congress was sending the message to all future Congresses and presidential electors that American sons born abroad are absolutely eligible to serve not only as Congressmen and judges but also as President. 

   That intent is unavoidably clear because there is no other conceivable purpose or intended effect behind using that term.

   The second reason is that in the young federal republic, with State’s rights being supreme, citizenship was first and foremost a state matter, -as was immigration.  No one in the nation thought of anyone as being, or not being, a natural born citizen of the Union nor the federal government.  All were or weren’t natural born State citizens, so for them to use the term: “natural born citizen of the United States” would have been as strange to their ears as “natural born citizen of North America” would be to ours.  It had no conceptual precedence.

   To support the common sense basis of this explanation, a simple similar situation can be pointed out, and that is that the Vice-President was also over-looked in the Constitution when it came to his eligibility to serve.  It required a constitutional amendment (the 12th) to state that he also must meet the qualifications of the President.   Otherwise, he could have been anyone who was not a natural citizen of any State of the Union.

   Now, with the background of understanding of the citizenship act of 1790 let’s move on to understanding why it was not called the Citizenization Act of 1790.  As you are probably aware, it was called the Naturalization Act of 1790.  What the heck is behind substituting “Natural” in place of  “Citizen”?  Answer:  A whole lot of American philosophy regarding the nature of man and the nature of national membership.  Those issues are directly related to a similar situation on the personal level.  That situation is adoption.

   The most extreme adoption situation is adoption at birth or soon after.  Adoption at later ages is not the same because the child knows what parents are and that adoptive parents are not natural parents, -but a baby does not.  Hence a bond can form at that stage that is identical to a natural bond, and such bonds are treasured and defended by American law in the form of secrecy.  Secrecy serves both the mother who gives up her baby for adoption, and the adoptive parents who never need tell their child that it is not their own natural child and they have no biological connection to it.

  They never tell their child such a thing unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and the child’s original birth certificate is locked away forever, and in its place a new “original” is created which names the adoptive parents as the biological parents.  It’s a major fiction of law perpetuated to protect human bonds.

   There is a similar situation with national bonds.  Children born of foreigners, in the United States, are by our law (the 14th Amendment) adopted into the American national family, and treated exactly as if they are natural citizens just like the children of actual citizens.  And there is no difference whatsoever in all of American life.  But, -being the President of the United States is not an element of “America life”.  It is an extremely rare and unique privilege, honor, and sacred trust on which many, if not all, of our lives may depend.  No one has an unalienable right to be the leader of their people, but some have the right to seek the leadership because they qualify.  In America they quality by meeting the requirements of the United States Constitution.

   It requires that they be “No person except a natural born citizen”.  That happens to describe about 97% of the nation, so it’s not exactly very restrictive.  But some want it to be even less restrictive because they are, -or they support, someone who is not a natural American citizen since they had a foreign father or mother, or both, at birth.  Such Americans are born ineligible because one can only be a true natural citizen via birth, -not via law.  -Just as one can never be a natural child by adoption even though they can be a child from birth via the permission of adoption law.

   A child either is or is not a natural child due to its birth circumstance (its parentage, -not the location of its delivery) on both the family scale and the national scale.  Both are forms of natural relationships and both come with bonds that are affected by the nature of those to whom they are born.  Are they insiders or outsiders?  Are they natives or foreigners?  Are they Americans or aliens?

   As I stated, it makes no difference (unless you are the one in 300 million who is elected President).

 It makes no difference in America because there are no alien citizens here.  Nor alien-born citizens.  Nor adopted citizens.  All citizens are Natural Citizens.

   That sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland, -akin to a proclamation of the Queen of Hearts, (“All ways are My Ways!”) but in fact, it is one of the most fundamental principles of our American republic.  It is a contortion of attitude and outlook toward those who are not fully and solely American by birth, and it is established at the fundamental level as an America fiction of law.  It is foundational.  It’s the doctrine of citizenship equality, and by it there are no natural-ized citizens.  There are only “natural” citizens.

   Foreigners do not go from being foreigners to being “naturalized citizens”.  Instead, they go from being aliens to being Americans who are now also considered natural citizens.  The citizenship they then have is citizenship that they actually do not “have” in a fictional sense. Being as they are no longer aliens but Americans, they, like their natural born American brethren, are thenceforth considered Americans by nature, –as if they had been born as Americans. 

But those born of Americans are born as Americans.  They do not have United States citizenship anymore than a baby possesses baby-ness, or a human has human-ness.  Rather they are an American human baby.  That is what they are born being, -their nationality is a part of them, -not something that they possess.  (Do you “possess” membership in your own family, or is your membership a natural part of who you are?)

   So it is with “naturalization”.  It is a form of membership alchemy.  An alchemist’s aim is not to change lead into something equivalent to gold, but to actual gold.  And so it is with natural-ization.  It changes aliens into Americans, -as if by alchemy, or the magic of the American fiction of law.  And that fiction is not an option because it is as fundamental as the Constitution itself. 

   The nation was founded on certain principles (including unalienable rights) and that is one of them.  If you’re in a foxhole surrounded by enemies, to them it doesn’t matter that you were naturalized last week while your buddy is a descendant of Mayflower settlers.  You are both nothing but Americans.  There is no difference.

   Nor is there any difference in the United States between such citizens. (unless you seek the position of  the  presidency) Why not?  Because of what is revealed by the use of the word “naturalized”.

 Vaporized:  changed from solid or liquid into a gas.

Carbonized:  changed from organic to pure carbon.

Crystallized:  changed from a liquid of dissolved chemical compound into a solid crystal structure.

Naturalized:  changed from being unnatural to being natural.

 Since only the opposite is literally possible, it’s like a form of magic that occurs in the philosophical realm, but that magic is recognized as a fundamental truth of American life by the Supreme Court.  Congress has no authority to tamper with it.

   Congress was unaware that it had no authority over the nature of American citizenship for nearly a century.  For four generations it passed laws that stripped American citizenship from naturalized citizens who returned home to live in the country of their birth, -or anywhere else.  Finally one of them sued and the issue had to be considered.  What the court realized was that citizenship once given, can never be revoked because it is not something that remains as an “it” which the citizen possesses and therefore can be withdrawn, but is instead something that the citizen is.  Not all nations limit themselves like that, but the United States does.

   That means that Americans do not have United States citizenship (unless they are a foreign-born, alien-fathered “provisional citizen” minor).  Their citizenship is merely membership in the nation, and that membership is natural membership, -meaning that they are Americans by nature.  “Americans” are who and what they are.  Their Americanness is not something that they possess because of having United States citizenship.  Rather, their national membership (citizenship) is merely the open, official legal acknowledgement that they are Americans.  “Having” citizenship does not make one an American, rather, being an American is why one is recognized as an American citizen.

   Does the federal government, -the executive branch, recognize this truth?  Who knows what’s in their minds, but it can be noted that after the reorganization of the federal departments into the Department of Homeland Security, the name of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was changed to the Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS).

  The official recognition of what “naturalization” actually is has perhaps been lost or abandoned since it does not come as naturally to the mind as does the notion of citizenship as being a thing that one possesses, -or doesn’t.  What would the bureaucrats answer if asked: “does the government have any right of regulation  regarding Americans who were once foreigners but became natural-ized”?

   There is a very high probability that they would not know how to answer because no one had ever instructed them in the foundational principles of membership in the American nation.

   Another question, one for all Americans, is: Does Congress have the authority to regulate the natural national membership of those born to Americans, or merely the responsibility to recognize and protect it, as seen in the Naturalization Act of 1790?

That question would never be asked by any American who understands what it means to be an American, because it is equivalent to asking: “Does a robot have the authority to regulate the life or membership of its creator?”  Or, “Does a servant have the authority to tell his boss that his child in officially not a member of the family and household unless it was born under the family’s roof, within its personal property boundaries?”

by Adrien Nash August 2013

  obama–nation.com

 

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”.

22 Responses to NATURALIZATION: The Key to Understanding Presidential Eligibility

  1. arnash says:

    Ray wrote: “if citizenship status must be clarified by a law, treaty, compact, etc, it is a certainty that the person is not a natural born citizen.”

    That statement reflects a basis lack of understanding of the nature of citizenship. It’s hinge is the word “clarified”.

    Clarification of understanding changes nothing at all. It just makes that which is true known to the confused. Clarification is solely the means to eliminate confusion.
    The founding fathers of our nation, and the framers of its Constitution were certainly not confused at all that all children born of American fathers were Americans, but they knew that some people, such a those with the view that you’ve related, would not understand that fact, -and if such people held important position in government, then they might do to natural born citizens what was done to Wong Kim Ark (who was a constitutional citizen).

    Hence they altered the pattern in the the Naturalization Act of 1790 and went a big step passed referring to American children as merely “citizens of the United States” and instead deliberately referred to them using the language of the Constitution related solely to the Presidency.
    Therefore their intent was made known that place of birth does not make nor unmake a natural born citizen because they are the product of American fathers, -not hallowed, sacrosanct American borders.

    Citizenship connected to soil is citizenship determined by human mandate, which could alternately be based on other criteria as well, such as race or religion.

    It is not citizenship as a form of natural national membership. Rather it is merely legal national membership by the permission of law.

    No legal citizen is eligible to serve as President. That means that no citizen except a natural born citizen shall be eligible… and only sons of American fathers could be citizens without the intervention of law on their behalf. That is what “natural” means. A natural citizen does need government to be a citizen. It is an automatic incontestable, irrevocable birthright of all children of the nation, -regardless of where their mother was located when they entered the world.

    The laws of other nations are irrelevant. Even North Korea wouldn’t have the audacity to claim as its own a child born on its soil to a passenger of a place that had to make an emergency landing within its borders. Children belong to their parents and to the country to which they belong. No government on earth contests that fact.
    Natural citizenship is universally inviolable.

  2. slcraignbc says:

    You ask the question “does/did the Congress have the authority to do what they did…?”

    The answer must be an unequivocal YES … !!!

    The MANDATE of A2S1C8 “enumerated plenary power” to the Congress to ESTABLISH an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization.

    Once it is recognized and acknowledged that the Ratification of the Adopted COTUS served as a “collective naturalization event” insofar as the EXISTING State Citizens were concerned, then following the ‘provisions of U.S. Federal Law” of the 1790 Act titled; “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship: implicit though not stated) naturalization”, which, by its title alone can be characterized as being “an Act to establish the U.S. Common-Law of U.S. Citizenship”.

    Try construing and reconciling the Acts of Congress on the subject of U.S. Citizenship from THAT perspective and you’ll find that it is NOT necessary to RESORT ELSEWHERE.

  3. slcraignbc says:

    So, is that exposition pending or posted ….???

    And before you attempt too much scathing you might want to consider IF the 1790, et seq, Acts were consistent with the historical understanding of a “true” citizen that was a point of focus in Aristotle’s Bk III on Politics.

    Consider that “IF” the Act of Congress was / is consistent with the historical understanding of the term of words, “natural born Citizen” insofar as REQUIRING a Citizen father, with the mother / wife covered by the doctrine of “coverture”, then the “short-lived” provision that providing for the “foreign born” would NOT be contrary to Vattel’s notion that the COUNTRY of the FATHER is the COUNTRY of the Child, no matter where in the world the child happened to be born.

    I can only speculate as to WHY the Congress included the “considered as” a (U.S.) natural born Citizen, however, I can construe the “considered as” to mean that such a child was “considered as” IF being born within the limits of the U.S.

    Unfortunately the issue never arose to be contested so it is left to speculation whether they had the Constitutional Right or NOT, but it can not be argued successfully on philosophical or English Law grounds.

    But, I’ll stop for now and await your “scathing”.

  4. arnash says:

    The new exposition has only begun to be written. By your second comment, it appears that you have the correct understanding of the nature of natural citizenship, and are not possessed of the view that needs crushing.

    As for this statement: “I can only speculate as to WHY the Congress included the “considered as” a (U.S.) natural born Citizen”; if you read many of my most recent dozen or more expositions, I explain exactly why they did what you do not yet understand.
    Once you grasp where they were coming from and wishing to accomplish, it makes perfect sense that they did what they did. Unfortunately, later congresses were not aware of their intent, or wished to nullify the implications and consequence of American nationality being explicitly shown to be conveyed by blood, and not birth location. Its upshot was that every All-American son born and raised in America (but born before his fathered was eligible to be naturalized), would forever be barred from any hope, dream, right, or chance of serving as President.

    That included tens of thousands of American sons, and the naturalized voting fathers would have been none too pleased about the disenfranchisement of their pre-naturalization sons. But that was the inescapable result of natural citizenship by descent replacing British common law native-birth citizenship as the criterion for eligibility to serve as President.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Well, I think we ARE most likely on the same page, except for the tendency for justifying what the Congress DID DO rather than to let the ACTUAL Laws speak and stand for their-selves.

      I understand that tendency as I have taken the long-road to “resorting elsewhere”. But once I turned to the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation I have found that the 1790 Act did indeed “ESTABLISH an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship, implicit but not stated) naturalization.

      The 1st step is to recognize and acknowledge that the EFFECT of the Ratification of the Adopted COTUS serving as a “collective naturalization” event upon all those who were existing State Citizens.

      Once that “leap of faith, logic, reason and common-sense” is made then it may go without saying that ANY benefit realized by a “newly naturalized alien” in the forthcoming 1790 Act would already be PRESENT within a newly naturalized Founding generation United States Citizen, under FEDERAL LAW.

      The rest is the yellow-brick-road all the way home by simply reconciling those things that would affect a provision of the Executive Branch usage of the term of words.

      Race and gender were NEVER a bar to the eligibility provision so the ONLY Congressional Act that touched upon the provision was the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act which consign the doctrine of ‘coverture” to the dustbin of history, insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned and “affecting” a U.S. natural born Citizen by no longer REQUIRING the MARRIAGE of the TWO (2) Citizen parents.

      I do not believe that I have missed any “reconciliations”, but remain open to construing any “what-about’s” that may come along.

  5. arnash says:

    What that first Congress did in the Nat. Act was to covertly declare that it was the position of the national government that only natural citizenship and naturalized citizenship would be recognized by it. That was in effect, a turning of their back on common law citizenship since it was not conveyed by blood relationship, -by descent, but instead by arbitrary choice of government, with birth place being its chosen criterion.
    I see a huge but ambiguous problem in this statement of yours: “the 1790 Act did indeed “ESTABLISH an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship, implicit but not stated) naturalization.”

    It is a gigantic mistake to believe that Congress established any rule other than a rule for foreigners and their children, but your wording implies it established a citizenship rule when it did not do so and could not do so since it had no authority in that regard. Its sole authority was regarding naturalization, -meaning making citizens of aliens.

    As for a high-flying ivory-tower concept of a “collective naturalization” event, that is an event that never took place in anyone’s mind because citizenship was rooted and grounded at the State level, and remained so until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 when it was partially federalized.
    Before, during, and after the Revolution, and prior to the Constitution, as well as after it, all citizens were colony or State citizens, and those States were affiliated in a confederation that became a Union of State republics. There was no such thing as a national citizen who was not first and foremost a citizen of one of the States, until babies were born of residents of the U.S. territories or the District of Columbia. They, like naturalized citizens, were considered citizens of the United States first and foremost, and State citizens secondly if they lived in a State at some point.
    This statement is seriously dangerous: “ANY benefit realized by a “newly naturalized alien” in the forthcoming 1790 Act would already be PRESENT within a newly naturalized Founding generation United States Citizen, under FEDERAL LAW.”

    Perhaps you meant under constitutional law, because federal law was not about providing benefits since they were provided by State law and constitutions. And the Bill of Rights of the Constitution was not federal law. If was a part of the compact of the States in forming a union.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Well, now you are off in the weeds.

      The “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization” was made under the AUTHORITY of the ENUMERATED POWER at A1S8C4 which SAID;

      ” … The Congress shall have power to ….. establish a uniform rule of naturalization, ……. throughout the United States; … ”

      The SCOTUS Opinions of;

      COLLET v. COLLET – 2 U.S. 294 (1792), Chief Justice John Jay:
      Talbot v. Janson, 3 U.S. 133 (1795), Chief Justice John Rutledge: THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797), Justice Iredell,

      …EACH found that the Federal Law superseded ANY and ALL State Laws on the subject of U.S. Citizenship, and in FACT the 1795 expressed the same;

      ” … SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may
      be admitted to become a citizen of the United States,

      or any of them,

      on the following conditions,

      and not otherwise: —

      I’ll let you vet that and see if we can get back on the same track………….

      • slcraignbc says:

        P.S.,

        “Naturalization” is a POLITICAL CONCEPT that MAKES CITIZENS at BIRTH or OTHERWISE.

        The U.S “Established uniform Rule of naturalization” may be characterized as “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at BIRTH or OTHERWISE.”

        IF you find ANYTHING in the U.S. Laws, beginning in 1790, that contradicts those EFFECTS of the U.S. Federal Laws let me know.

        As to your understanding of what is Constitutional and Federal insofar as Law is concerned needs a little attention.

        The Constitution, including ALL Amendments and Treaties are the SEEDS and the FEDERAL Laws are EVERYTHING ELSE.

        In other words, the Constitution is a dormant Document until it is put into EFFECT by the Federal Laws made in pursuance thereof, such as the 1790 Act, et al.

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NOTE: You mischaracterize the Constitution by failing to bear in mind that much of it is prohibitive in nature, not mandatory of action. The Bill of Rights are not about what government power is established, but what the rights of the People are. Also, no federal law can dictate what “natural born citizen” means. Constitutional requirements may be adhered to by Congress or violated by it, but just because federal law may be all over the map, the Constitution is not also, so little equivalency should be drawn between the two.

      • arnash says:

        “…EACH found that the Federal Law superseded ANY and ALL State Laws on the subject of U.S. Citizenship,”
        That is a horribly dangerous way to state something that should only be stated in a different way. Your language confuses the subject of citizenship with the subject of naturalization. They are universes apart, although overlapping in the center.

        No laws of the national government, and probably few of the State governments and constitutions, even pretend to deal with the subject of natural citizenship. It is OFF LIMITS TO GOVERNMENT. It is “a priori”, immutable, inviolable, transcendent and foundational. Law-makers have no authority in the matter of natural belonging.
        Their authority begins and ends with alienness, with outsiders, with foreigners, with immigrants from other nations, with subjects of foreign monarchs, and sovereigns, and the issue of how (and who) to make Americans by the solemn natural-izing transformation from a natural member of a foreign nation into a natural member of the American nation and society.

      • slcraignbc says:

        To say that “Naturalization”, the “NOUN” has NOTHING to do with Citizenship other than to describe the process of MAKING Aliens Citizens displays a grossly simplistic understanding of the concept of Politics in general and the associated concept of Rule of Law specifically.

        All PERSONS within the various States, whether State Citizens or otherwise, were ALIEN to the Constitution PRIOR to its ADOPTION and RATIFICATION.

        It’s true that the COTUS contains many of the provisions of the Articles of Confederation and perpetual union, but the COTUS created a New Form of Government among the Nations of the World.

        Either you accept it as such, a seminal event in the history of the world, or you consign it as if just another day at the office, either way it is a system based on the Rule of Law, not men.

        Law, its-self, is a COMPACT among those who devise and consent to them, and no others.

        Laws can be written in such a manner in which they are antithetical to “natural law’ understandings and ‘common-law’ practices and customs;

        OR,

        they can be written in a manner consistent with them and are barely noticed in ones daily life except when there is cause to access to them or the limits agreed to are breached.

        In late August of 1789 the 9th Certificate of Ratification of the COTUS was received by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation and the NEW NATION was born.

        At that moment, on that day, all of those who were then a citizen of any of the several States, and ONLY they and no others, became, ALSO, a Citizen of the United States of America.

        Laws are written to have certain EFFECTS, to say otherwise is an inadmissible argument according to Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison, the EFFECT being the purpose of the Law in the 1st instant.

        To say that THOSE State Citizens were then MADE U.S. Citizens is to say they were NATURALIZED by the PURPOSE of the COTUS in the 1st instant upon its Ratification;

        ” … We the people of the United States, in order to ………… secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…..” (Preamble, truncated to pertinent part)

        Consider, concur, oppose or demur ……

  6. slcraignbc says:

    P.S.

    You make this argument;

    No laws of the national government, and probably few of the State governments and constitutions, even pretend to deal with the subject of natural citizenship. It is OFF LIMITS TO GOVERNMENT. It is “a priori”, immutable, inviolable, transcendent and foundational. Law-makers have no authority in the matter of natural belonging…””

    I am trying to find the words that would convey the absurdity of that proposition without being offensive, ooops, I used the word absurd……..mmmm

    In studying the specific subject of the term of words used in A2S1C5 required a thorough study of “citizenship” in general, which then required study of the formation of societies in general.

    Our Government was formed among several independent and sovereign States for specific purposes. Among them, NATIONAL SECURITY. To say that such a Government has NO INTEREST in who its Citizens are is antithetical to its purpose.

    But……….here is the EFFECT of the LAWS as I interpret them that MAY sooth your mind by finding it conforming to your “natural law” concept that RULED prior to formations of governments;

    The “Established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization” PROVIDES for a U.S. Common Law among its Citizens, whereas;

    ” Once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at BIRTH or OTHERWISE.”

    Established, March 26th, 1790 by the Congress of the United States of America.

    • arnash says:

      “To say that THOSE State Citizens were then MADE U.S. Citizens is to say they were NATURALIZED by the PURPOSE of the COTUS in the 1st instant upon its Ratification;”

      You misunderstand the basic nature of the compact of the State republics. They remained sovereign over citizenship. Just as they constituted the entities of the new nations, so also their citizens constituted the citizenry of it as well.

      There was no concept of making them into something that they already were; which was citizens of the united, allied, confederated STATES of AMERICA. The term “naturalization” is oxymoronic when it comes to natural citizens. Only foreign immigrants need to be made “natural members” of a political entity via natural-i-z-a-t-i-o-n. All Americans already were natural members of the new political compact because they were the ones that created it.
      It did not create them nor their natural membership in a new aggregate union. The federal government was not viewed as the superior government in that new union except in limited ways that were little changed from the powers already delegated by the Articles of Confederation.
      You need to differentiate between various meanings attached to the title: united states of America. The first and foremost meaning was that seen in the Declaration of Independence. It spelled STATES in huge letters, and “united” is very tiny letters, showing it was merely an adjective and not a part of the title: The STATES of AMERICA.

      Those new State republics were separate but allied nations, having full sovereignty over immigration and naturalization, and that did not change under the Constitution except that they all had to follow the same rule book regarding the requirements for foreigners before being admitted to State citizenship.
      You said: “To say that such a Government has NO INTEREST in who its Citizens are is antithetical to its purpose.” But no one said that so you were quoting no one. Government has much interest in who is admitted to membership, -at least it used to before 1898 when A.G. John Griggs opened the door wide for any and every sort of foreigner to be parent to an American citizen merely by having their baby born within U.S. borders.

      That was insignificant at the time because the immigration across the US Mexican border was minimal and perhaps even legal. But now when we should care intensely, we have an administration that acts like it doesn’t care at all.

      • slcraignbc says:

        I’m sorry, you are too far out in the weeds…………Although the 1790 Act was not adamant on the issue the 1795 Act WAS……..the issue being the “mandated plenary power” on the subject of U.S. Citizenship.

        It’s true that the SOME of the various States continued with THEIR STATE systems defining THEIR STATE Citizens beyond the 1790 Act…………..HOWEVER……the 1795 Act put and END to State Citizenship insofar as those that would seek the Rights, privileges and immunity’s of National Citizenship ………read carefully from the 1795 Act;

        ” …… SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted

        to become a citizen of the United States,

        or any of them, or any of them,or any of them,or any of them,or any of them,or any of them, or any of them, or any of them, or any of them, or any of them, or any of them, or any of them, or any of them, (x13)

        on the following conditions, and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — and not otherwise: — (x13)

        There is little I can say until you agree that the Constitution and ITS Laws made in pursuance thereof became and is the Supreme Law of the Land …(which is consistent with the term of words, “common-law” of the Land).

  7. arnash says:

    “….the issue being the “mandated plenary power” on the subject of U.S. Citizenship.”

    That is a subtle over-reach and mischaracterization of the constitutional authority of Congress. You may take a stand that Congress assumed authority that it was not given, but you cannot take the position that the States or the Constitution gave Congress any authority over State citizens and their citizenship.

    It only had authority to make a uniform nation-wide rule for the naturalization of foreigners. FOREIGNERS, not Americans, -authority over NATURALIZATION, -not Citizenship. Citizenship only exist by birth or by completing the congressionally mandated requirement for foreigners before being allowed to take the naturalizing oath of Allegiance & Renunciation, -which was the naturalizing act.
    Apart from actual naturalization, was the issue of what the federal government’s view would be regarding those born of an American women and a foreign man (a much later development), children born of naturalized immigrants, and children born of Americans who never lived in America.

    The choice was to follow natural law in all three situations. The nationality of children of Americans was not a naturalization issue. It was, in 1790, a presidential eligibility issue, and from 1795 and onward, it was a protection of American citizenship issue, and a prevention of citizenship for those who were not natural Americans due to two generations of foreign birth and domicile.

    If you incorrectly perceive what the actual authority of Congress was and is, then you will also misconceive the very nature of your own untouchable citizenship.

  8. slcraignbc says:

    I guess where you are confused is in not taking the Preamble with its EXPRESSED INTENT…..

    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    The WE the People were ONLY the existing State Citizens, but once the COTUS was Ratified they became also U.S. Citizen, by AFFIRMED CONSENT, just as ‘aliens” were / are required to do when naturalized, (verb). Thereafter a child of a U.S. Citizen father is born a U.S. natural born Citizen by TACIT CONSENT, (prior to 1922 Cable Act a wife/mother was the same Citizenship as the father under the doctrine of coverture.)

    MUTUAL CONSENT is required for U.S. Citizenship, Affirmed or Tacit, with a TACIT CONSENT U.S. Citizen being a child of at least ONE (1) U.S. Citizen parent along with ALL U.S. natural born Citizens, being born anywhere in the world from March 1790 to January 1795 and ONLY within the limits of the U.S. thereafter..

    ALL AFFIRMED Consent U.S. Citizens are those of the Founding Generation and ALL “naturalized” (verb) aliens.

    • arnash says:

      The citizens of the States of America did not join “The United States” by ratifying the Constitution; they BECAME the United States as equal separate partners in a confederated union of sovereign republics.
      The citizens of the republics at the time of ratification constituted the citizenry recognized by the soon-to-be established central government. But once it was established, it choose to not recognize new State citizens who were not born of citizens nor naturalized. The States were free to continue to allow jus soli citizenship but the federal government was under no obligation to recognize it, and the naturalization acts did not do so.

      A man had to naturalize in order for his children, native or foreign born, to be acknowledged as being Americans.
      But American children born abroad had no requirements put on them. The requirement was that all State election officials recognize them as the natural citizens that they were by birth.

      That recognition was intended to continue on in perpetuity as an everlasting protection of their unchallengeable right to serve as President. But there were very strong voting constituencies allied against that right because it was founded on the basis of natural citizenship being the basis of what natural born citizenship is.

      That disenfranchised all of the sons of unnaturalized immigrants who later became Americans and voters. They outnumbered the fathers of foreign-born American children by about 10,000 to one. So the language meant to protect the rights of natural American sons born outside of U.S. borders had to be removed, and forgotten. And it was in essence.

      “MUTUAL CONSENT is required for U.S. Citizenship, Affirmed or Tacit,”. That is over-simplistic since it fails to take into account all citizens who are not yet of age. Their citizenship is not optional. It is whatever the parents’ are. Also, tacit consent is not mutual since consent of government is not an element of the rule of law nor does it apply in an individual sense, although there are subtle discernments about paternity and maternity made by consulate officers which do involve consent and discretion.

      “…ALL U.S. natural born Citizens, being born anywhere in the world from March 1790 to January 1795 and ONLY within the limits of the U.S. thereafter.”

      Such a statement is evidence that you are a Kool-Aid drinker and have swallowed a dogma that has no foundation in reason, fact, nor language. “Citizens of the United States” could always be born anywhere in the world and that did not change in 1795, and neither you nor anyone else can explain how or why it would have or could have since Congress had no authority over natural citizenship.

      If your father mentioned you in his will as being his son, and later rewrote his will and mentioned you as his child, would that have made you cease to be his son and be merely a nondescript off-spring without gender? Your position argues that it does.

      Being mentioned by a specific label or by a general label has no impact on the specific characteristics of one’s constitution. Being a natural born citizen means first and foremost being a citizen, but a particular type, just as being one’s son means first and foremost being one’s child but one with a particular gender.
      Changing labels from a subset to its parent set does not alter the character of the subset. It merely generalizes the label used. How is such a simple fact not transparent to you?

      The reason is your embraced dogma. It blinds the mind and distorts perception of the obvious.

      “The greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie –deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myth offers the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. John F. Kennedy.

      • slcraignbc says:

        Ok, I’ll try to make this as simple as possible to try and dissuade you from holding fast to your erroneous misunderstanding of the nixes of “natural law’ and ‘political compacts”

        A “CITIZEN” is an integral participant in the implementation of the “political concept” of a “government” and with the “Political determination” to form a government for the benefit of ITS MEMBERS, i.e., ITS Citizens,

        “Citizens” do NOT exist in the “natural world”, they ONLY exist in a Political World as an identifier of the members of the various Political Societies.

        Too the technical imperfections of your conceptions of the status of the States post Ratification BY THOSE STATES, who then accepted that the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the Land on THOSE THINGS which the States GAVE the Authority to the General Government on.

        Section 8 of the COTUS is the ENUMERATED POWERS Section and among those powers is A1S8C4.

        When you combine some words they often take on meanings beyond the limits that any of the single words may imply.

        ” … The Congress shall have power: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, ……. throughout the United States;..”

        “The Congress shall have power” …was GIVEN by the States, individually and collectively.

        ” AMENDMENT X

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

        So the power to say who is or is not a U.S. Citizen was NOT RESERVED by the States, POST Ratification.

        ” To Establish”; to begin, to institute:…

        ” an uniform Rule” : a guiding principle, as in a doctrine, whether natural law or common-law’ from which its various parts derive its authority in its application.

        “naturalization”; (noun) ; a Political concept of identifying and recognizing the members of a Political Society, at BIRTH or otherwise.

        Now, you need to research and will find that those persons who were not State Citizens at the Ratification of the COTUS then REMAINED Aliens, insofar as the States and the COTUS were concerned.

        Its true that some States continued to utilize their State naturalizing processes, but those persons that were made State Citizens did NOT have the Rights, Privilege and Immunity’s that those who naturalized under the Federal Laws.

        Scott v Sandford is instructive, especially so if you lay aside the fact that Dredd Scott was an manumitted slave and consider him as any alien person who had not become a U.S. Citizen even though he became a State Citizen under a State’s Laws.

        Going back to the 1790 Act and construing it in its wholeness with the understanding that the Ratification of the COTUS had the effect of “naturalizing” ALL of the existing State Citizens then you recognize who those U.S. Citizen parents were that was traveling beyond the limits of the U.S. and then also recognize that the benefit of the children of that the newly naturalized alien received, making those children with him U.S. Citizens concurrently with him you will find that in its totality the Act says;

        “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so to are their children, at BIRTH or OTHERWISE”.

        And that brings about the understanding that, as Justice Rutledge opined in Talbot v Janson, that “Citizenship is communicable”, meaning that it is “the Citizenship of the parent begets the Citizenship of their children”.

        THAT is wholly consistent with the “natural law” that you are supporting, but with the added AUTHORITY of being FEDERAL LAW, and therefore being ENFORCEABLE, insofar as identifying the birth circumstances of being born a U.S. natural born Citizen.

      • arnash says:

        To deepen and broaden your understanding of the nature of natural citizenship, American Rights, and the circumstance faced by the new nation, read the new exposition of August 1 titled: “Who’s the Boss? American Kings or their Butlers?” https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/whos-the-boss-american-kings-or-their-butlers/

  9. slcraignbc says:

    Spell-check error:

    ” … nexus of “natural law’ and ‘political compacts…”

    • arnash says:

      nex·us
      ˈneksəs/
      noun
      noun: nexus; plural noun: nexus; plural noun: nexuses

      a connection or series of connections linking two or more things.
      “the nexus between industry and political power”
      a connected group or series.
      “a nexus of ideas”

      • slcraignbc says:

        I was correcting the spelling of the above post where it was misspelled;
        [WTH??? NEITHER TERM OR SPELLING EXIST IN THE ABOVE EXPOSITION!? YOU MUST HAVE READ IT ELSEWHERE.]

        “Ok, I’ll try to make this as simple as possible to try and dissuade you from holding fast to your erroneous misunderstanding of …“natural law’ and ‘political compacts”

        The attempt and intent of the post was to show that the Constitution ESTABLISHED a Compact among the People that provided for “LEGAL” existence of “natural Rights”, in a similar manner as the Magna Carta.

        [THAT IS A TOTALLY FALSE STATEMENT. FIRST, THE COMPACT WAS NOT BETWEEN THE PEOPLE BUT BETWEEN THE STATES. THE COMPACTS BETWEEN THE PEOPLE WERE THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS.
        SECOND, YOU ARE CONFUSING THE BILL OF RIGHTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH WAS WRITTEN TO ESTABLISH A FORM OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH MATTERS THAT AFFECTED ALL STATES, WITH AN EYE TO LIMITING THAT GOVERNMENT’S AUTHORITY. IF YOU CAN GET SOMETHING THAT FUNDAMENTAL WRONG, WHAT CAN’T YOU GET WRONG?]

        {(Magna Carta was the first document imposed upon a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights)}.

        The great distinction being that a Government in Whole was BUILT around the Ideals, Principles and Intents expressed in its Preamble, and its preamble the Declaration of Independence.

        [THAT IS FALSE, OTHERWISE WOMEN WOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED TO BE EQUAL TO MEN, AND THOSE OF AFRICAN DESCENT AT WELL, WITH SLAVERY BEING ABOLISHED.]

        THAT is the NEXUS to which I was referring, the ‘natural rights of man” as construed from the history of observations of “natural laws of the laws of nature and natures God” CODIFIED in a Political Compact WE call the COTUS.

        [THAT IS PARTIALLY CORRECT. BUT MORE CORRECT IS WHAT PRESIDENT CALVIN COOLIDGE SAID ON THE 150 ANNIVERSARY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:

        “Equality, Libery, popular sovereignty, the rights of man – these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their SOURCE and their roots in the RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.
        They belong to the unseen world. “Unless the faith of the American in these RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS is to endure, the principles of OUR DECLARATION WILL PERISH.
        We cannot continue to enjoy the RESULT if we neglect and abandon the CAUSE.”]

        As for your “Who’s the Boss” screed, well, I find it tending toward anarchy with its disavowment of Constitutional Republicanism, Rule of Law and Political Representation derived from the population of the People……….

        [WELL ISN’T THAT A WELL EXPLAINED DISMISSAL! IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK LIKE THIS: YOU HAVE A CONTENTION WITH A STATEMENT OR PRESENTED CONCEPT AND YOU THEREFORE QUOTE OR CHARACTERIZE WHAT THAT STATEMENT OR CONCEPT IS, AND THEN YOU REFUTE IT.
        BUT SNOOTY, IVORY-TOWER DOCTRINAL ELITISTS NEVER DO THAT BECAUSE THEIR UNREALISTIC DOGMAS DON’T HOLD WATER IN THE REAL WORLD, AND DON’T REFLECT ACTUAL HISTORY.

        UNDERSTAND THIS; THE APPROACH TO DISCOURSE AND DEBATE THAT TURNS TO THE TACTIC OF UNEXPLAINED DENIGRATION AND DISMISSAL IS THE APPROACH THAT HAS NO LEGITIMATE BASIS, AND THUS NONE CAN BE ARTICULATED BY RELYING ON ACTUAL FACTS.

        COVERT IMPERIALISTIC DESIRES REGARDING GOVERNMENT’S POWER WILL ALWAYS FIND A DOCTRINE TO EMBRACE, BUT IT WILL PROVE TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, AS IS ANY VIEW ABOUT ITS INNATE AUTHORITY OVER THE SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF THE TRUE SOVEREIGNS OF THE NATION.

        YOU ARE ONE OF THE KOOL-AID DRINKERS WHO WORSHIPS AT THE ALTER OF GOVERNMENT POWER, WHILE PRETENDING TO BE A RESISTOR OF ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT POWER. WERE YOU NOT, YOU WOULD HAVE AGREED WITH EVERYTHING YOU READ. INSTEAD YOU DISMISS EVERYTHING BECAUSE IT FAILS TO COMPORT WITH YOUR VIEW OF THE US CONGRESS AS BEING THE EQUAL TO THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, ENDOWED WITH UNLIMITED IMPERIAL AUTHORITY OVER ALL SUBJECTS, UNLIMITED BY ANY CONSTITUTION.

        THE ONLY ANARCHY IN SIGHT IS THAT EMANATING FROM YOUR IDEA OF A CONGRESS THAT IS GOD OVER ALL MATTERS OF CITIZENSHIP. WELL THAT IS A SERIOUS HERESY, AND A FORM OF TREASON AGAINST AMERICAN FREEDOM FROM ALMIGHTY GOVERNMENT. I ASKED THE QUESTION: WHO OWNS YOU? YOU? OR THE GOVERNMENT? IT SEEMS THAT YOUR ANSWER IS: THE GOVERNMENT.]

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: