Our Asinine U.S. Citizenship Perversion

America has a perfectly clear understanding about the gift of American citizenship to the US-born children of foreigners since its policy hasn’t changed in over a century, but that understanding is mired in a morass of stupidity and false ideas.  That is the result of ignorance regarding a simple reality central to citizenship (military service), as well as the exploitation of a simple flaw of language, -an ambiguity that goes almost universally unrecognized even while evident in plain sight.

The ambiguous word is a key word and lynchpin of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause.  It’s the word “JURISDICTION”.

It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that it can be used in two barely related ways; one relating to territory and the other relating to authority.  One could say something like; “Within the jurisdiction of the Yellowstone National Park, the National Park Police exercise jurisdiction over criminal matters.”

An unambiguous translation is: “Within the territory of the Yellowstone National Park, the Park Police exercise authority over criminal matters.”

Under the reign of the British monarchs, such an ambiguity did not exist because they used unambiguous terms; “Within the King’s domain, all are subject to (or under) the dominion of The Crown.”  Clearly, domain implies territory and dominion implies authority, -and can extend beyond the borders of the domain.

One would never say: “Within the King’s dominion, all are subject to his domain.” because that would translate as: “Within the King’s authority, all are subject to his territory.”  Absurd, right?  Asinine.

And yet that is the same kind of distortion Americans have been making for over a century in their use, or misuse, of the word “jurisdiction”.

How would this sound to the logical mind: “Within the authority of the Yellowstone National Park, the Park Police exercise territory over criminal matters.”

Obviously, the two different meanings are not interchangeable, and yet when it comes to citizenship, they are thoughtlessly conflated by not thinking about what the 14th Amendment actually says.

How did that come about?  It came about because of a very deliberate bastardization of the word by a Supreme Court justice when he wrote the landmark opinion of the court in its ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause in 1898, -which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.

It continues: No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What that corrupt justice (Horace Gray) did was to use sophistical logic to claim in effect that “subject to the jurisdiction” means about the same thing as “within the jurisdiction”, conflating the importance of the territorial meaning with that of the authority meaning for the purpose of neutralizing or castrating the subjection requirement.

[~an explanation for his deceit can be found in the theory that he was appointed by President Chester Arthur who was an unconstitutional President since he was born of a British father and not an American father, -a fact kept secret and replaced with the fallacy that his father became an American before he was born, instead of many years later.

If President Arthur was not born subject to the authority of the United States but by British law and American policy was born subject to British authority, then he was not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution, and thus was an illegitimate President whose appointment of Gray to the Supreme Court was also illegitimate.]

One result is reading it as if it says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, -within the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States,”.

The other consequence of Gray’s distortion of the word “jurisdiction” was the uncontemplated interpretation that all persons born in the United States, and subject to its authority, i.e., its laws, is a citizen of the United States.  That comes with a huge logic error.

It is the substitution or replacement of its actual meaning (political authority) with a meaning of subjection to American civil laws instead.

Such subjection makes sense, “everyone born in the U.S. and under the authority of its laws…”   But, it makes no sense that Congress would write such an unnecessary thing into the Constitution itself.  What is unnecessary?  Stating that one must be under or subject to the authority of American civil laws.

That also is asinine because everyone without exception, including those with diplomatic immunity, are subject to American laws.  Diplomatic immunity does not imply that one is not obligated to obey all laws of the host nation.  It only means that if they are violated anyway, one is immune from prosecution, -but not free from the obligation to obey them.

No one is immune from the obligation to obey the civil laws, no one.  So exactly what would be the reason to insert such a “requirement” into the Constitution when it is already a universally uncontested fact?

There is none because there are no exceptions for differentiation.  Everyone is subject to the authority of the civil laws of America, but everyone is not subject to the full authority of the political laws that apply to the obligations of citizenship.  Those laws, which exert full American sovereignty, only applied to American men.  Only they were and are subject to the full force of American authority over citizens possessing what was once full citizenship.

Excluded (by universal consensus understanding) from national native-born citizenship (via fulfilling the subjection requirement of the amendment) were all persons born in America to those not subject to American political sovereignty while living or sojourning in the United States, i.e., Native Americans, foreign diplomats, as well as all foreign guests (visitors, tourists, students, etc.), and arguably, foreign immigrants and transient Gypsies.

As written, the meaning of the 14th Amendment, whose meaning the majority of the court completely changed, was that if one was subject to a foreign power (-as disallowed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, -written the same year), as all foreigners were, then one was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the American government.

Twins can be subject to two different governments, but an individual cannot because he cannot serve in the defense of two nations upon conscription during a war in which the two nations may be on opposite sides.

That was why immigrant foreigners, along with their native-born children, were excluded by Congress in 1862 from conscription into the Union Army for Civil War service.  They were not Americans since they were foreigners, and foreigners were and are still subject to their own government until they renounce all allegiance and obedience to it by taking the naturalization Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation, thereby cutting their foreign loyalty and becoming American citizens.

So by an act of Congress written just two years before the 14th Amendment, immigrants were aliens (non-citizens) and their native-born children were aliens just like them since they were born subject to their father and he was subject to a foreign sovereign.  Like father, like son, -neither one subject to the full political authority of the U.S. Government.

Although they were within (even born within) the jurisdiction, -the territory, -the domain of the United States, they were not subject to the political jurisdiction, -the national authority, -the sovereign dominion of the American government.  They were exempt from the draft as aliens.  Native-birth meant nothing.  Parentage and ancestry and foreign subjection and allegiance meant everything.

That was the position of the American Congress, the executive branch, and the courts, until Justice Gray and his cohorts turned American policy, Congressional law, and prior Supreme Court rulings upside down in 1898 in their U.S. v Wong Kim Ark holding.  After that, (-and the Attorney General’s expansion of their limited ruling regarding only immigrants’ children) the “law of the land” became that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, -immigrant or not, permanently domiciled of just passing through, Green Card holder or mere Visa Card visitor (except children of Ambassadors).


The Naturalization Act of 1795, Sec. II.; “ …and be it further enacted, that any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, may be admitted to become a citizen, on his declaring on oath or affirmation…that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same,…”

Obviously, “jurisdiction” has two meanings even when used in conjunction.

That means that being born within the jurisdiction is not the same as being subject to or under the jurisdiction, i.e., the authority.  One can be within the jurisdiction (territory) and yet not be subject to the jurisdiction (authority) as was the case with those mentioned prior, along with outlaws and across-border invaders.

Inversely, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of American sovereignty over its citizens and yet not be within its jurisdiction (by living abroad).  Foreign Americans (male) must be subject to the requirements of citizens, including registering with the Selective Service at 18 years of age, not trading with banned countries, nor giving aid and comfort to an enemy, and paying U.S. taxes.

That means that any reference to providing citizenship based on just birth within the United States alone is false because that ignores the subjection half of the 14th Amendment’s requirements.

Half of the 14th Amendment requirement (subjection) was misunderstood, misinterpreted or ignored, chopped off, tossed away, and forgotten.  As a result, today we are a nation that has forgotten its past, is unaware of its origins and foundations, and is seen as amazingly stupid or generous for allowing its citizenship to be bestowed on any child born of any woman who can make her way across our unprotected borders or allowed in for any reason.

What you have now read and understood cannot be found anywhere else.  It has never been echoed nor pieced together by anyone else.  It is a lone voice in a wilderness of ignorance, apathy, and prejudice against the truth, which you now know.  Don’t look for confirmation in anyone else’s writing because there is none, -only the separate pieces of the puzzle.  That’s because of how great the darkness of ignorance is.

A match lit on a moonless night can illuminate fairly well.  So also, a beacon of truth can illuminate the mind with the light of logic & fact regardless of how universal is the darkness into which it shines.  But the truth alone will have no impact on ending that darkness.

No other nation on Earth is so ignorant and brain-dead.  They all just scratch their heads at what passes for American policy.  Heck, the Kenyans even thought that we allowed a Kenyan citizen to become President.  They all just marveled.  But everyone was and is wrong.  Wrong about the actual law, but… -right about the institutionalized erroneous policy followed blindly by the knuckleheads running the American government.  Their policy unfortunately does have the force of law and the real law doesn’t change that.

When will the government fix the mistaken policy and toss out the error injected by justice Gray and his cohorts on the high court, -or at least the mindless extension of their reasonable change of national policy (inflicted by the Attorney General with his making  even children of alien non-immigrants citizens)?  Answer:  Never.

Even if there was a movement to make a correction, the opposition in the Democrat Party would be insurmountable because they see them as future Democrat voters.  So once an error of that magnitude is made, it becomes entrenched forever because of the strength of its support.

The dream of the Democrats is to see majority Democrat rule in both houses forever, along with control of the presidency and the courts so they can fundamentally change America into a nation with little influence from its foundational charter which they swear to preserve and protect with their lying oath of office.

They, like all RINOs, are liars and hypocrites who will doom our nation’s future with their corrupt and profligate abuse of their spending & regulating authority.  If the States don’t start nullifying the gross over-reaching of the federal government, then it will definitely never end but will instead continue to grow like the cancer that it is.  And you know how cancer ends.  It kills its host.

The cancerous path we are on leads to a suicidal debt spiral which will “transform” not only America, but all of the civilized world with it, since they are following the same path.  –A  transformation into impoverishment and desolation.

There are only two directions:  greater tyranny of government via over-regulation and taxation, greater debt and sky-rocketing interest costs, and greater violations of constitutional protections, or… diminishing government power, spending, regulation, employee numbers, benefits and entitlements accompanied by greater freedom and incentive to work hard and prosper.

Perhaps Obamacare will mark the tipping point as it wrecks havoc in the health care, insurance, taxation, and employment fields.  With its vast over-reach, vast numbers of Americans will finally feel the sting of totalitarian, unconstitutional government.  Maybe that will finally awaken them to the fact that the Ship of State -USS Titanic, is sinking.

If it does awaken them, will they do anything beyond shuffling the deck chairs?  How can one hope for more when the entire Republican leadership is nothing but RINOs in cahoots with their socialist brethren in the traitorous party?  They would rather fight the up-start constitutional conservatives in their own party than to oppose the big-spending, broadly-regulating national sell-outs in the opposition Decepticrat party.

And why is there not even one eligible Republican in Congress worthy of being President and Commander in Chief?  Why is almost no one in government a veteran of the most fundamental responsibility of citizenship (military service)?  Talk about a vacuum of American leadership.  The national political landscape is a pathetic, cowardly and corrupt travesty, and most of us are going to pay the price for that.

 by Adrien Nash  Jan. 2014   obama–nation.com

 Section 201, Public Law 402, 80th Congress

The White House  April 5, 1951



By virtue of the authority vested in me by Title I of the Selective Service Act of `1948 (62 Stat. 604), as amended, I hereby prescribe the following amendments of the Selective Service Regulations prescribed in part by Executive Order No….

3. Section 1611.11 of Part 1611,

DUTY & RESPONSIBILITY TO REGISTER, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 1611.11  ALIENS WHO ARE NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER.  (a)  A male alien who is now in or who hereafter enters the United States and who has not declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States shall not be required to be registered under section 3 of Title I of the Selective Service Act of 1948, as amended, and shall be relieved from liability for training and service under section 4 (b) of said act provided: …

(6)  He is a person who has entered the United States temporarily as a non-quota immigrant under the provisions of subdivision (e) of section 4 of the Immigration Act approved May 26, 1924, as amended… (e) solely for the purpose of study at an accredited school, college, academy, seminary, or university, particularly designated by him and approved by the Attorney General, and continues to pursue such purpose to the satisfaction of the Attorney General; or

(7)  He is a person who has entered the United States temporarily pursuant to the provisions of section 201 of the United States

Information and Education Exchange Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 7; 22 U.S.C. 1446; Public Law 402, 80 Congress), and continues to pursue the purpose for which he was admitted.  ~ ~ ~

Guests of the Foreign Visitor Program are NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction over citizens, and therefore neither are any sons born to them within the U.S.  But since the Wong holding, sons of permanent immigrants are subject.  Thus their sons are citizens per the 14th Amendment.

So… Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen via his mother or his father nor via native birth because native-birth alone is insufficient to meet the requirement of the 14th Amendment.

But, even if he were born of immigrant parents, he would still be ineligible to be President since no 14th Amendment, native-birth-dependent citizen from birth is eligible.  They are all born ineligible since none of them are natural born citizens.  They are instead government-made citizens, legal citizens, even constitutional citizens, but not natural citizens.


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”.

5 Responses to Our Asinine U.S. Citizenship Perversion

  1. arnash says:

    a.r.nash writes:

    The actual opinion of the court in WKA is the most vital approach to dismissing its significance because its literal words destroy the false interpretation attached to it by the obamunists who declare that it makes all alien-born Americans-by-law into constitutionally eligible nature born citizens.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    Argued: March 5, 8, 1897, Decided: March 28, 1898

    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    Order affirmed.”


    I’ll give a million dollars to the obamunist that can point out the words in the opinion, -the holding, the decision of the court which do that.
    I’m inclined to exclaim “Wow” when reading: “for determination the single question “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent….!!
    One cannot exaggerate the insignificance of the Wong opinion when you take those words into account. They mean that it only applies to the question of the nationality of native-born children of Chinese immigrants.
    What percent of annual births did they constitute, less than 1%? If 96% of births were to Americans,…

    No other immigrant children are covered by it. No natural citizens are covered by it. No slave children were covered by it. No Native Americans were covered by it. Only a sliver of a sliver were covered.
    That’s laughable, and of course it’s compounded by the requisite characterization of their majority view as being merely an opinion, “this court is of opinion that…”

    Their opinion is nothing more than an a bias in favor of citizenship for immigrant children regardless of the constitutional authority of the Congress to determine who they considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” as a legislative issue, and not a constitutional issue.
    The court bastardized their proper role and place and usurped authority that was not given to it. It was not an issue between the States nor over a constitutional issue. It was a policy issue and the court has no authority to make policy. That belongs to the Congress and the executive branch.

  2. arnash says:

    MichaelN says…

    “Born in the allegiance” is not a reference solely to native birth.

    Here this quote is from the Wong Kim Ark opinion….

    “To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only *within* the territory, but within the ligeance of the government.”

    Then we have what the WKA court relied on as a measure of “common law”, i.e. Calvin’s case, where not only was native-birth alone REJECTED as sufficient to make a natural born subject, but a native-born had to be born under the ligeance of a subject, to be a natural born subject.

    Which proves that the reference to the “common law” principle which you quoted from the WKA court, i.e. “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens”,
    actually is a reference to the subject/citizen status of the parents, under whose allegiance the native-born child is born.

    Ergo: “born in the allegiance” in the context of the quote from WKA actually means native-born AND born under the allegiance of a US citizen.

    Here’s the part from Calvin’s case that the Wong Court got it from….

    “And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born:”

    ” that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”

  3. arnash says:

    “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

    The 14th Amendment citizenship clause required something that could not be true of any native-born alien’s female child.

    No daughter, whether of citizen or of alien, was subject to the citizenship responsibility that American men were subject to.

    American daughters nevertheless inherited their nationality from their fathers, but that did not make them full-fledged citizens, because citizens could vote, serve on juries, run for public office, serve in law and government, but women, like children, could not.

    Citizenship and women were not a perfect match until they left the country. Then in an international environment, they were no different from American men.

    By understanding the nature of full subjection to national authority over the brotherhood of American citizens who bore the responsibility to defend the women, children, disabled and aged of the nation in war, one comes to the realization that by the Wong opinion, U.S. citizenship could be ascribed to the sons of immigrants but not to the daughters.

    They would retain their foreign father’s citizenship only since they were not subject to the American sovereign authority over all her male members. They were exempt. They were a protected class.

    No one could proclaim that native-born daughters of aliens were citizens per the 14th Amendment, but no one would even think to proclaim that they were not.
    Their mothers and wives and daughters and sisters would not take lightly to such a proclamation by anyone. It would smack of discrimination.

    But consider actual history. A pregnant foreign woman arrives in the United States long ago. Few or no State magistrate will accede to her request to naturalize since it would mean little to nothing as far has her legal rights are concerned.
    But if she marries an American man, she immediately becomes an American just like him. “And the two shall be one flesh” (Genesis)

    But for a single foreigner the daughter she bears will be born as a foreigner also since she will not be subject to the full crucial American sovereign authority over US citizens, -and following the Wong opinion, over immigrants’ sons as well.

    She might grow up in America as an American and yet not legally be a citizen of the United States. Instead she would only bear her grandfather’s nationality.

  4. arnash says:

    The debate isn’t over whether or not children of illegal aliens are US citizens per the 14th Amendment which only covered the native-born children of Chinese immigrants, rather it is the question of what kind of citizen the native-born children of aliens are.
    Are they citizens by law, by jus soli allowance, by government permission, by adoption at birth, or are they citizens by natural transmission of national membership, by blood, by unalienable right, by inheritance?

    You cannot arrive at the true answer unless you ask the right question and frame it in realistic terms, -not arbitrary philosophical terms that involve human caprice and choice.
    There is no choice involved in natural citizenship. It is absolutely unavoidable unless the parents renounce their U.S. citizenship before birth occurs.

    That is not the case with legal citizenship, jus soli citizenship, 14th Amendment citizenship. To avoid U.S. citizenship for their child, all the mother needs to do is walk across the border before delivery. Presto, her child is an alien and not an American, and definitely nothing even related to a natural born citizen.

  5. arnash says:

    Slarti says: “we’re arguing that the Founding Fathers defined “natural born” in the same manner that the British did.”

    Hog wash. The founders did NOT define “natural born” because no such term existed. Only two terms existed in post-Revolution America: “natural citizen” and “born citizen”. Neither of them needed a definition and neither can provide a definition because both are ambiguous.

    NATURAL CITIZEN: one born of citizens or one who becomes a citizen by natural-ization, abandoning their former sovereign and government and becoming an American.

    BORN CITIZEN: one born of citizens or one granted citizenship at birth by the benevolence of the natural citizens of an American nation-state (and later, by the Wong holding).

    “Natural” does not and did not modify the word “born”. It is entirely a modifier for the word “citizen”. NATURAL CITIZEN, A BORN NATURAL CITIZEN, A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    If Starti cannot offer a rational explanation for why John Jay underlined the word “born” then he needs to shut the heck up until he can.
    What is the explanation? The American fiction of political philosophy known as the doctrine of citizenship equality. By it all citizens are natural citizens and thus there are no inferior nor superior citizens. ALL ARE EQUAL!

    But only those *born* as natural citizens are permitted to be Commander in Chief.

    Wake the heck up and gets some new facts in your blind mind for once.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: