Citizenship & Foreign-born Presidents

The first Congress of the United States had to correct a deficiency in the Constitution after it was pointed out to them, probably by Thomas Jefferson or by John Adams, or both.  Both of them were at the time of its authoring serving as American Ambassadors in Paris and London, accompanied by they wives and children.

One or both of them may have had a son while serving abroad, and if so, they would have wondered what the Constitution would say about their political nature and eligibility to serve their country.  Would it recognize their right to serve in the legislature of the United States?  Would it recognize their right to serve in the judiciary of the United States?  Would it recognize their right to serve as chief executive of the executive branch?

The answers to the first two questions was clearly answered in the Constitution, but the answer to the third question was missing because it required something more than simple citizenship.  It required natural citizenship by birth but did not make it clear that that which made an American a natural citizen was blood, and not borders.  So the Constitution had a deficiency of silence on that ambiguous issue.

The first Congress knew of this and intended to, and did, correct that deficiency by stating in the clearest language possible that American children were all natural citizens by birth regardless of where that birth took place.  It mandated that children of United States citizens, born beyond our borders, “shall be considered as natural born citizens”.

It did not say that they were to be recognized as simply citizens of the United States because of that there was absolutely no doubt.  Children inherited their father’s nationality whether they were foreigners or Americans.  That was the principle of Natural Law that was a fundamental America State policy.  That was never questioned by anyone.
The question was whether or not everyone would realize that fact then and in the future.  The problem was that some people might not grasp the fact that those born as Americans were Americans by nature, by blood, by inheritance, and not by legal allowance of government.

Those possessed of the misconception that their nationality was dependent on the acquiescence of government would erroneously presume that foreign-born Americans might be some sort of citizen other than what the Constitution required in order to serve one’s country as its top executive.  To prevent such erroneous thinking, it was decided to spell out the fact in explicitly constitutional language by stating that foreign-born Americans were to be recognized as that which they were born being, i.e., natural born citizens.

They were not mentioned in the Naturalization Act of 1790 to assure that they would be recognized as citizens and not aliens.  Rather, they were mentioned solely for the purpose of making it clear to all in the most permanent way they could that American children born of American citizens were all the same; -equally eligible to serve as head of the executive branch and U.S. military.

No one questioned that they were Americans by birth, but some would have muddled and ignorant thinking about the nature and origin of natural national membership, and so it had to be made clear for those people who might have position of authority and who were indoctrinated with the British imperial policy regarding who was born as a subject of the king, that natural born citizens were all persons born of citizens.

They thought that after they inserted that clarification into their Naturalization Act, that the matter would be settled permanently, but a later Congress was ignorant of their purpose for inserting that reference and so they assumed that the correct issue wasn’t presidential eligibility but was simply asserting that foreign-born American children were Americans and not foreigners.

Their assumption was wrong, and their alteration to the first nationality act passed by a Congress composed of many of the founding fathers, completely undid the purpose for mentioning foreign-born American children.  That purpose was solely because of the issue of presidential eligibility and the silence regarding it in the Constitution.

It was a correction of an over-sight, an omission, a deficiency, -not unlike that regarding the Vice-President.  The requirement that he meet the same requirements as the President was not added to the Constitution until it appeared in the 12th Amendment.

The mandate of the 1790 Naturalization Act was not written for the purpose of declaring the very obvious; namely that American fathers always produce American children no matter what the circumstance of their birth.  Everyone already knew that and none questioned it because it is a fundamental principle of Natural Law.

Nationality law is only written to deal with foreigners and their children.  If the father was a foreigner then law was required to make it possible for him and his family to become Americans.

If the mother was a foreigner, then she became an American simply by marrying an American.  If both parents were American then no law was needed in order for them to be that which they were born as.  That is no different than the situation for the parents.  No law was needed and none has ever been written to grant citizenship to those who are born with it by being born as citizens, -as natural members of the group into which they were born.  It came by inheritance, and no group of men has any authority to “give” them that which is theirs by an unalienable right of Natural Law.

~    ~    ~    ~

MichaelN wrote: “the US Congress and Senate changed the second US naturalization act of 1795 so as to exclude children who were born off-shore to US citizens from being considered as natural born citizens, instead declaring them to be “citizens of the United States”.

Everything about that statement is wrong.  First, American sons born abroad were not “excluded from being considered as natural born citizens”.  The language contains not one single little word of exclusion of any sort other than being excluded as being considered foreigners.

The language was about differentiation between those children born as Americans and those born as foreigners needing naturalization.
If you are born as an American then you are born as “a citizen of the United States”.  The presidential eligibility language  was later removed because the author(s) of the revised version didn’t understand why it had been inserted by those who were the founders of the nation and who wanted all natural American sons to be treated equally.  Inequality was unAmerican.

If you had four sons, then became an Ambassador, and your 5th son was born abroad, then you returned home after a few years of serve and fathered four more sons, how is it that the lone 5th son should be rejected from the same right as all of his brothers?  He might be the brightest and most patriotic of all of them and perhaps even a Justice of the Supreme Court, and yet he’s ineligible while an immigrant’s son (born after his father’s naturalization) would be eligible to be President regardless of all of his foreign baggage?

 14th Amendment Citizenship vs Natural Citizenship

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. relates: “that question had nothing to do with defining a “natural born citizen” and all to do with defining a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

A suggestion; instead of making an illogical contradistinction between a “natural born citizen” and “a citizen of the United States”, instead make this distinction: the Supreme Court’s 14th Amendment Wong opinion is not about citizens who are native natural born citizens but about citizens who are native alien-born citizens.
That is the distinction that has always been the focus of the United States government.

It was always about parentage, -not language in the Constitution.  Blood inheritance was everything.  One’s inheritance and heritage was American or it was foreign.  And no one with foreign nationality inheritance and direct foreign heritage was allowed to serve as President.  Their origin had to be American only.  ~  ~  ~

Unknown stated:  “natural-born citizen” means citizen from the moment of birth; thus, just as the Court indicates, upon birth one is either a natural-born citizen or an alien. ~

That is child-like over-simplification.  You’ve made the error of associating natural citizenship with the irrelevant element of TIME.  Timing (at birth) is not connected to that which is determined by natural ORIGIN.

A law could exist declaring all native-born children to be citizens upon their first month or year of life.  What would that criteria (like “upon birth”) have to do with that which is “natural”?  NOTHING! That would be as arbitrary as at/from/upon birth.

Natural is determined by parentage.  One is either born of & into one group or born of & into another group; -American or Foreign.
Natural citizens are born of citizens while 14th Amendment Constitutional citizens are not.  That is why it was written, -to provide the children of non-citizens with citizenship via legal automatic naturalization.  That is why it is known as the Naturalization clause.

The U.S. government Census Bureau labeled native-born children of foreigners “foreign stock”.  Foreign stock cannot be tossed in with “native-stock” (natural born citizens) as if they are the same.  THEY ARE DIFFERENT.  One has American roots, the other has foreign roots.
One is conceived with no right to citizenship whatsoever, while the other is conceived with an unalienable right to citizenship. One enters the world with the gift of citizenship.  The other enters the world with a right so fundamental that no law even exists which “grants” it.  It is an organic, a priori, sui generis right that supersedes the authority given to men to bestow citizenship on those who have no natural right to it.

Mario wrote: “…the one and only description acknowledged, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.”
A. Nash responds:
“A child born to my wife under my roof is my natural born child.”  Question:  What does the location of birth have to do with anything?  Is a child born to my wife in a hospital an alien to me because it was not born under my roof and thus within my jurisdiction?

“A child born to my wife and I under my roof is my natural born child.”

“A child born of American parents in the United States is a natural born citizen.”
The logic behind both statements is identical and equally non-definitive logically, but Mario pontificates that only a child who is born in the country to parents who were its citizens…is a “natural born citizen.”

And where did he find the key word “only”?  In his imagination.  I’ll give him $1,000,000,000 to find one single historical “authority” who ever used that word.

None did because reason and language forbid it.  A nation can not “decide” what “natural” means, nor what “born” means.

There was no “political consensus” about what the specific words “natural born citizen” meant because it was defined not by men but by the English language.  Nothing can change that fact; not new ideas, nor interpretations, nor court citations of philosophical observations.
What those words mean does not rest on an opinion of the supreme court.
Only American parents can produce natural born American citizens like themselves, -not government nor philosophy nor opinions.

How do they do that?  Via life, -not law, via blood, -not borders, via natural inheritance, -not via opinion or soil.

Natural membership is an unalienable right of all off-spring of parents of every human and animal group.  That membership, including citizenship, is not dependent on anything other than who the parents are.  Members?  -or outsiders?
Outsiders have no right to membership and members are indelibly “stained” with what they were born being (insiders).
Their membership was pre-determined at conception.  They are natural family members, not adopted.  They are natural tribal members, not inducted.  They are natural national members, -not naturalized by permission of law.

Unknown wrote:  “There are actually a few who strongly believe that it need be only ONE parent, not TWO.”

Nationality flows from the head of the family to the children.  The father is subject to the full jurisdiction of the national government, -not the mother.  She cannot be drafted and sent to her death in war.

Women, like children, while considered citizens in a civil sense and an international sense, were not considered citizens in a political sense.  They were barred from politics and government offices, -not by law but by entrenched tradition.

But if the father was dead or was unknown, a child born to her would inherit her nationality because she was the head of the family.  In a sense, it would inherit her father’s nationality which is what she inherited.

If Obama’s mother had never married and had never declared the identity of his father, Barry would be considered to be a natural born American through her, -not by law but by nature.
By U.S. law he wouldn’t because it applied to foreign birth and she was a few months too young for that law to apply to her child whom she claimed was actually not foreign born.
Being as she could not prove that, she was never issued a birth certificate for her child, and hence the only thing in the archive is her hand-written perjurous affidavit and the typed version of it.  AN

Unknown wrote: “Article II…is a measure aimed to have the least possible foreign ties bear upon those who might be POTUS.”

That is false.  The least possible foreign ties would be only those whose ancestors came to America on the Mayflower and other such early settlers’ ships.  That would be “the least possible”.
Instead, it was about preventing any direct ties through foreign parents.  That means that parents can be former foreigners who became new natural American citizens via natural-ization.

It would be asinine to claim that naturalized parents have no direct ties to their homeland and yet their sons could become the Commander in Chief & President.

If what you claim and believe were true then no child of a naturalized citizen could be President, but they can.  Why?  By one thing and one thing only; a principle of Natural Law.  If the parents are Americans then the children are Americans also just like them, -natural Americans, -born with their parents’ national membership.
It has been claimed, and not refuted, that back in the beginning of the nation only four States granted automatic naturalization at birth to children of foreign immigrants.  They were their native-born “sons of the soil” as opposed to sons of Americans, i.e., State citizens.
Sons born of aliens were never considered to be natural born Americans and were never considered to be eligible to be President because they were born ineligible, -born subject to a foreign power.

It’s analogy for most of American history was the son of a Catholic.  Catholics were not to be trusted with the office of the President because they were subject first and foremost to the the “Vicar of Christ” -the Pope, and sons born to them were also, just as sons of foreign settlers were still subject to the monarch under whose reign they were born and raised.

No one born subject to a foreign power was ever considered to be a natural citizen of the United States because natural citizens do not have an obligation to their own government as well as to another government.
Citizenship, whether American or foreign, involved inherited obligations to one’s nation.
No one who inherits dual obligations to two nations via parents with different nationalities is a natural citizen of either.  He is a hybrid and his citizenship is double-layered and his  national allegiance is compromised or diluted by direct foreign connections.

No one with direct foreign connections can be entrusted with the position of Command in Chief.  He must be born as an American and nothing else.
Otherwise he is in the same category as naturalized citizens; being American but with foreign baggage.  Only those without baggage are exceptions to the rule that “NO PERSON EXEPT…”.

“No person” includes everyone not born of Americans. THAT is Natural Law.  AN  ~ ~ ~

~About James Madison’s statement emphasizing the influence of soil on allegiance; you need to grasp three important facts: (1) His view as a Representative of Virginia was not a pontification on Natural Law and its principle of natural membership.  It was nothing more than a personal impression of (2) someone who was a Virginian!

The viewpoint of Virginians was British, NOT American.  Virginia had long considered children of immigrants to be colonial subjects and State citizens as “sons of the soil”.

That was not the practice in most of America but it was ingrained in the thinking of Virginians, until, that is, one became President.  Then they learned that no child of an immigrant is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.  They learned that native-birth was irrelevant to natural citizenship, and they changed their tune, as he did when writing as Publius during his presidency regarding national policy about natural citizenship.

Unknown made a leap of false logic with:
“Natural-born citizen must therefore mean citizen upon birth,”.

“Upon” means “at birth”.  No person who is a citizen upon birth is eligible to be President because they are a naturalized citizen thanks to the SCOTUS Wong opinion.

Only those (the 97%) who are citizens by birth are eligible. That means citizens by the Law of Nature and not by human law and its allowance.

Every President in history has been a citizen of the United States with the exception of Barry Obama.

Every President in history has been a natural born citizen of the United States except Chester Arthur and Barry Obama.

Every natural born citizen is a CITIZEN of The United States, but not every Citizen of The United States is a natural born citizen (about 3-4% are not).

Naturalization acts dealt with those who are not citizens of the U.S. -not those who are.  Those who meet the requirements are CITIZENS of THE UNITED STATES, while those who don’t are aliens.

In no act ever written by Congress are American children born outside of the U.S. declared to be foreigners and not American citizens.  Any presumption that any act denoted such an position is illogical, unfounded, and erroneous.

Naturalization acts are not the best place for dealing with the issue of presidential eligibility since they are not about the presidency but about CITIZENSHIP alone.
The language of all naturalization acts, in ordering that all foreign-born American children be recognized as American citizens, contains not a single hint that recognizing them as “CITIZENS of THE UNITED STATES” indicates that they are naturalized children of foreigners (among the 2-3%), nor alien born children of Americans and not natural American citizens via their American parents.

Only foreigners and their children can be natural-ized, -NOT Americans and theirs.
American parents produce American children, -naturally, -by the Law of Nature.

Any and all assertions that being recognized as a CITIZEN of THE UNITED STATES means one cannot therefore be a natural born citizen of the United States is brain dead.  AN
~~~~
mario wrote:
“Publius” (probably James Madison who was President then) on October 7, 1811, commenting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which was the same as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 in the particular at issue) in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure,” stated:

“Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

Publius, in 1811, living when the acts were passed by Congress, would know what Congress intended when it passed the naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802. In that connection, Publius tells us that where a child was born was not controlling when it came to U.S. citizenship. Regardless of where the child was born, if the child’s parents were aliens, the child was alien born. Regardless of where the child was born, the child’s parents had to naturalize in order to make their children citizens.

The historical record tells us that Secretary of State, James Monroe, who was serving the James Madison Administration, eventually declared McClure alien born, but a “Citizen of the United States,” not because he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, but because a few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States” and McClure was dwelling in the United States at that time. I will take Publius’ and the James Madison’s Administration’s word in 1811 on what the acts meant rather than the Obots’ today.

For more information on the James McClure case, see my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012 .    January 9, 2014

~~~~

The obama eligibility defenders love to quote all sorts of non-authoritative sources but keep themselves blind and deaf to the McClure statement by Publius in 1811.

They cling to State laws like that of Virgina which allowed automatic naturalization for their immigrants’ native-born children, while deliberately trying to remain ignorant of Federal policy regarding citizenship.
It was in conflict with the laws of such States. Guess which one held authority regarding national recognition of citizenship and presidential eligibility?

National policy viewed children of aliens as aliens via their alien father.  When he renounced all allegiance to his foreign monarch and nation (openly naming him), and swore allegiance to the Constitution, he could become an American, and his children through him.

Even if not present in the U.S. at naturalization, his foreign children became citizens upon arrival in America, but only his children born after naturalization were considered natural born U.S. citizens and eligible to be President.
That was because they were born with no direct foreign political roots.  They were naturally Americans because they were born of Americans.  That’s Natural Law. AN

Slartibartfast said…
“The native born children of immigrants are citizens at birth by the 14th Amendment”.
reply:
First; “immigrants”, YES!  Second; NON-immigrants…NO!

As originally conceived, the amendment left both as non-citizens.  But your claim became true following the Wong opinion which itself is the reason that they are citizens, -not the Amendment.  The court changed the original meaning of the Amendment.
The court made them citizens.  By the amendment, they were not citizens.
That is revealed by the conscription act of 1862 which exempted all alien immigrants and their native-born children from the draft for the Civil War.  They were both classified as aliens, -including the native-born sons.  Why?  Because they were subject to a foreign power and had not sworn allegiance to the U.S. Constitution nor renounced their allegiance to their foreign sovereign.  THEY WERE NOT AMERICANS BY FEDERAL POLICY.

A few years later the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was written, followed promptly by the 14th Amendment, -written in the same era and almost by the same Congress.
You and your ilk believe the 14th Amendment reads:  “All persons born in the United States, -within the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen…”  Guess what?  It DOES NOT SAY THAT!

Place of birth is only one of two necessary criteria for citizenship.  The other one is that the father be fully subject to the authority of the national government in the same manner as a citizen is subject.  Immigrants were not so subject when the 14th was written, and only became subject after the Wong opinion.
The interpretation then became that if the child is subject, then the father must be subject also because subjection to the duties of citizenship flows through him.

After that, all alien immigrants and their alien children could be drafted and sent to war.  But non-immigrants (like Barry’s father), could not because they were/are guests of the U.S. government.  Guests are exempt and subjection does no flow through them to their American-birthed children.  That is why Barry is not even a citizen.  The 14th Amendment only applied to children of immigrants, -not to Native Americans (before 1920), guests, whether foreign diplomats,  tourists, students, and every other type of foreign visitor.

Without subjection there is no citizenship.  THAT is the 14th Amendment regardless of the ignorant consensus opinion of the last 115 years.
~~~
Unless an American man was born and raised in one of the few states that allowed “sons of the soil” citizenship, in the mind of the men of that time, aliens were aliens no matter where they were born.

Those other American minds were warped by their State laws and they didn’t grasp the truth about the American nation as a whole and its fundamental historical original policy regarding alien-born children.
THEY WERE ALIENS LIKE THEIR FATHER.  No one owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign could be an American nor be born as an American.

Children were produced from the mold of their father, inheriting his nationality.  And dual nationality was an abomination just like BIGAMY.
Note: Naturalization did NOT involve merely an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.  It also involve the total abject rejection of all foreign authority over one’s life and loyalty.

Children born to men who had not done that were not Americans because they belonged to and were the product of their father, made in his foreign image.
It was also U.S. policy for American children no matter where they were born.  It was ONE policy worldwide for both.  Children were what their father was, whether Foreigner or American.

It is a form of mental blindness to think that foreigners produced foreign children in America but Americans produced foreign children outside of America rather than American children like their father.
THERE WAS ONLY ONE POLICY FOR BOTH!  LIKE FATHER, LIKE SON.

“AND THAT THE CHILDREN OF SUCH PERSONS SO NATURALIZED, BORN OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES BEING UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF SUCH NATURALIZATION, SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES,”

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”.

One Response to Citizenship & Foreign-born Presidents

  1. arnash says:

    An Analogy:

    All plants = all humans
    All trees = all “U.S. persons”
    All fruit trees = all U.S. Citizens
    All Apple trees = all Natural born Americans

    The UNITED STATES is an orchard having 97 apple trees (the natural born citizen population percentage) along with one orange tree (domestically-birthed alien-born citizen children of Green Card immigrants)
    It also has one small cherry tomato plant (the children of NON-immigrant foreigners who were NOT born “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” and are NOT U.S. citizens per the 14th Amendment.

    Barry Obama is of that bush. He is not an apple and he is not an orange. He is a foreigner since he has never been naturalized, -or has he? Since all information regarding his past is secret, we can’t be certain. But it would only make him eligible for offices other than the presidency.

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: