NOT Understanding the Nature of American Citizenship

The mind-set that views native-birth as the criterion for natural citizenship is a view disconnected from Natural Law.  Instead, it is connected to the force of raw power.  Government power.  But Power is not Principle.

 How does one answer this question posed to a royal dictator: “Why is this person assigned the life role of your servant and subject?”  The King would answer: “Because he was born within and under my dominion.”  To which one could respond; “But what is the connection between that and being your subject for life?”  The answer can only be a doctrinal policy rooted in the Divine Right of Kings to rule. 

It cannot be a principle of natural membership because natural connections are not tied to geography nor royal power & imposed authority.  The only suggestible answer based on a quasi-principle would be ‘the Law of the Jungle”.  “I’m the dominant Alpha Male and if you don’t yield to me and obey my commands I’ll beat you up. I’ll punish you good.”
No one is going to accept that as an acceptable principle to govern the national membership of a free and democratic people.  And yet that is the very basis of what is erroneously viewed as American citizenship policy.  American policy cannot ever be explained by elucidating its underlying principle because it does not have one.  Instead it only has the law of the jungle. 

To the question “Why?” comes the answer “It is so because it (the government) say it is so.”  “But why is it so?” 
“Are you stupid?  No one ever asks that question!  It was decided long ago and that is that.” 
“Was it explained in writing somewhere that I can read and understand?” 
“No, it just is.  It is by order of the government.  So forget about looking for a philosophical underlying principle.  There isn’t one.” 
“Well, maybe there isn’t and maybe there is, but just because one is not recognized does not mean that one does not exist, whether or not it is recognized and followed.”

“The law only states what it states, and it does not state any principle, so you won’t find one.” 
“But the law has to have a an original basis for its mandates or they could not exist.  What was the influence that determined its enactments?  Was it merely capricious human choice or did it have a deep underlying natural influence that dictated its choice?” 
“Who knows and who cares?  It is what it is so just move along.”

Attitude check:  “Sir, why are people so ignorant and so apathetic?”  “Who knows and who cares?”  [Hmmmm… I wonder if something could possibly be wrong with this picture?]  What does it say to you that the entire government establishment takes that same attitude?  If one never even asks a question, one will never learn the answer. 

“What is the underlying determinant that results in one’s nationality?  Is it human policy or natural principle, -or both but with no explanation as to that fact?”  Answer: the latter.  It is easy, very easy, to not explain why legal choices are made, -why bother when (a.) law-makers don’t know themselves, and (b.) it is not necessary in order to enact legislation?  Just declare: “This is so.”  You don’t have to explain why it is so. 

And so it is with citizenship.  It can’t be explained.  It can only be declared, like someone once declared: “Good fences make good neighbors.”  Or “I don’t understand it but I believe it anyway.”  Just accept what your superiors tell you, like good sheep, and move along.  Don’t question it nor even feel any curiosity about it.  It is what it is.  Your only option is to accept.  Resistance is futile.

But what if one chooses to resist by declaring that “even though I was born to American parents, and live in America, I am not an American.  I am an Atlantian, -and I am not obligated to register with your Selective Service conscription Service nor subject to your international embargo rules.”
  That attitude would reflect his capacious choice for his life.  What right or law does the government have to give him orders that violate his natural liberty?  The answer is: Natural Law.  He cannot claim to not be an American anymore than a member of a racial group can declare that they are a different race.  [Unless you are a Michael Jackson, such an attitude would be absurd on its face.] 

One cannot escape, via mere protest, the nationality with which one was born, which one inherited, which is part of one’s political DNA.  We’ve all seen strange videos in which two animals are friends; a bird and cat, a deer and a dog, etc., -but neither of them can change out of what they were born as. 

Natural citizens are born being what they are by natural political inheritance.  They can change what they are but not by mere protest, and it is their fundamental right to do so.  That was the very basis of the War of Independence.

 Americans had and defended the right to change nationality by forming a new nation of their own.  That was the hard way to do it.  But the peaceful way is to renounce ones citizenship before a proper authority of one’s government.  Law or policy allows one to do that.  [Although in some nations such a renunciation is null if one does not adopt another nationality within a certain period.  That would leave them as a stateless person, and that is unacceptable in this world.]

What’s the point?  It’s that one can view their national membership as a mandate of government or as a consequence of inheritance.  It can be one or it can be the other, but it cannot be both, because one is primal and the other is not.  One’s membership is either natural or it is legal.  It is by nature or it is by law.  If it is by nature, then law is not needed, and in fact does not even exist.  If it is by law, then nature may or may not matter since it is a choice of government.  It usually does matter as parentage is always involved, -except for naturalized foreigners.
   Natural national membership is the basis of citizenship in the United States and yet since principles are never brought up from the basement and shown as what connects us, -not the transient, temporal event of exit from the womb, it is blindly assumed that that which determines the American citizenship of a tiny fraction of the population is in fact the basis of the citizenship of the 97% of Americans who are citizens instead by natural nationality inheritance. 
It is directly analogous to declaring that since one of your 12 children is adopted, -your child by law, therefore all of your children are adopted, and are your children by law and not by nature.  And worse, no one questions the logic of that false assumption.  And that is where we are today and have been for over a century.  Will it take another century before we rediscover our roots?  They are in Natural Law and not arbitrary human constructs which have no underlying principle at all.

by Adrien Nash  Feb. 2014, http://obama–


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”.

3 Responses to NOT Understanding the Nature of American Citizenship

  1. arnash says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…
    Would you explain how one can be only a “natural born” member of one’s parents’ society when one is born to those parents in a foreign society, which under its positive and municipal laws causes one to be born also a member of that foreign society.”


    Would you explain to me how one can be only a “natural born” member of one’s parents’ FAMILY when one is born to those parents in a foreign society? What law makes that the case?

    Answer in both cases: NATURAL LAW! THE LAW OF NATURE! UNALIENABLE RIGHT OF BELONGING TO ONE’S own BLOOD RELATIVES, -whether at the family level or the national level.

    All you need is a birth certificate or reasonable proof of paternity and maternity.

    Mario wrote: “So why then do you in your comment rely upon a positive law passed by Congress to show that “all American children are U.S. natural born citizens was settled forever by the act of 1790?”

    Congress had no authority over anything but the uniform rule of making the alien-born U.S. citizens via State process.
    The citizen-born are not ALIENS!!! They did not need naturalization.
    Congress had only one concern when mentioning foreign-born Americans, and it wasn’t protecting, nor “granting” their American citizenship.

    It was that those ignorant of Natural Law, and only steeped through life and law school in British law, would wonder and suspect that such children were not eligible to be President since the Brits failed to acknowledge the underlying Natural Law that would naturally dictate the nationality of foreign-born English children. They did what you think Congress did; made it so by positive law.

    But that first Congress sought only to protect the natural rights of the likes of sons of Jefferson & Adams born while serving as Ambassadors by making the nature of their national membership clear.

    Just ask yourself; “By what Natural Law would their children be born as aliens to them and their nation?” No law of nature produces that result, but instead produces the exact opposite.

    Congress had no authority in the matter, but it had an opportunity in the act to proclaim for the unclear what the truth is so there would be no unequal treatment given to those who were just as much Americans as their domestically born brothers.

    Congress used that opportunity, not to protect, nor provide mere citizenship, but presidential eligibility. That was its intent and its result.
    The later acts did not change that by referring to them using the full umbrella title for all Americans.

    Mario wrote: They became citizens by the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. But their children born to them after July 4, 1776 in one of the states took on a different type of citizenship.
    At that time,… the children of citizens who were born to them in their country in one of the states became the first “natural born citizens.”

    That is false, -as I’ve explained numerous times.

    All children of the colonial subjects were born as natural born subjects-citizens of their colony which became a sovereign nation-State.
    By their rebellion, and unity they all became members of the allied American nation. The members of that unity were considered in the eyes of the world as citizens of the united States of America, and no longer subjects of Britain.

    The Constitution never refers to natural born citizens of the United States. I made the mistake of assuming otherwise in many expositions which I now need to correct.
    But I had an epiphany one day when in a 1787 frame of mind, and realized the framers were referring to themselves as the exceptions to the “No persons” prohibition.

    They also did not want to exclude those foreign-born who had endured the hardship of the war for Independence, and included them next.

    Their children became the first natural born citizens of the United States, but the Constitution’s reference was not to one’s Union-wide national identity but to their sovereign State identity. One could not be a U.S. NBC if one was not a (State) NBC as the Constitution’s eligibility clause required of Presidents.

    Citizenship remained a State matter, -not a federal matter, -except as its extension.

    One’s nationality was American. One’s citizenship was derived from their State membership. “A Citizen of Virginia”. “A citizen of New York”. etc.
    All obligations and privileges of citizenship were State based, except national military service in dire emergency.

  2. arnash says:

    A birth certificate is not evidence of citizenship, and never has been. Alien-born children born in the US, like the foreigner-born children of a naturalized man, upon showing their birth certificates, would also need to show their parents evidence. With a naturalized foreign father it would be a certified copy of his naturalization document.

    With a permanent resident, it would be the parent’s Green Card. A Visa Card would make one
    INeligible, like Obama, because they are not subject to the full obligation of citizenship, namely the duty to defend the nation.

    Visa Card holders cannot be drafted, tried for treason, ordered to never trade with a banned nation, nor to not visit one. But all citizens and permanent residents can be since they comprise the society that makes up the country and are fully subject to its authority, in theory, but in practice they must be male.

    Mario expounded: “So even though her children were technically naturalized at birth,…”

    We have a problem, and it is the ambiguity of the term “naturalized”. It means two different things. Both result in citizenship but by different forces.

    I propose that we all stop writing and thinking of using the term in a non-discriminating manner. We need to discriminate between real naturalization and everything else involving automatic citizenship conveyance.

    I’ve explained that children of naturalized foreigners obtain derivative citizenship via their blood connection to an American father (or mother). It is by jus sanguinis that they become what he has become; an American.

    It is not by the so-called naturalization process. But…one can say they are natural-ized; i.e., “made natural” as Americans via the American artifice of law which recognizes all citizens as equals, as natural citizens under the doctrine of citizenship equality.
    By it, they are not naturalized citizens but fictional natural citizens like their natural-ized father.

    Those oblivious to the American principle of citizenship think there are basically two kinds of citizens, but that is heresy to a fundamental American principle; -that of EQUALITY FOR ALL.
    No princes, no nobles, no aristocracy, and no separate nor inferior class of citizens.

    For the Presidency, that fiction is suspended and superseded by a real-world imposition of a requirement that not quite all could meet.
    One could not be under 35, less than a resident for 14 years, a race other than white, a gender other than male, a background other than educated, a character other than moral, a religion other than Christian, a Christian other than a Protestant, and a citizen other than citizen-born.

    The alien-born need not apply because they are not natural born Americans.

  3. arnash says:

    MichaelN wrote: “All these people keep saying that native-birth is all that is needed to make a “natural born” subject/citizen, but no one seems to be able to show where it was so ruled or held.
    I can’t find it anywhere, can you?”

    It was never held nor ruled but that didn’t stop over-self-confident wind-bags with influence from stating it as though a fact. Such quotes can be found, but no such law.
    But there is a significant point too easy to overlook. It is that even if that was British law, it could not change what the requirements of the 14th Amendment are.
    It does not provide citizenship for all persons born in the United States. It requires something that was in fact also required in Britain, -namely; subjection. Not to the King, but to the moral, and legal, and political authority of our government in its role of protecting the nation.

    If one was not born of a father subject to that authority, -but one fully subject to the authority of *another* government which is where he resides, which is his home and society and nation, then one was not born subject to the jurisdiction needed to make one a citizen.
    That was what the 1866 Civil Rights Act meant, and is what the 14th Amendment means and requires.

    By that requirement, Obama is not a 14th Amendment citizen since he was not born subject to any obligation other than that of his non-immigrant British subject father.

    Mario wrote: “-our constitutional national common law informing who is a “natural born citizen” must be followed, not the positive or municipal laws informing who is a “citizen” or “subject” or “citizen of the United States,” regardless of whether that law is that of foreign countries or even our own.

    That is a legitimate position, but it doesn’t follow that it takes reality into account.

    As has been well proven, the founders did not view the sons of aliens as American citizens, so such sons are not a focus of exclusion by the eligibility clause.

    It’s words meant: “No citizen…”, and wasn’t discriminating between non-citizens and citizens but between different types of citizens. What types existed? Only citizen-born citizens and alien-born citizens from states that allowed jus soli citizenship.
    Both were born as citizens but by different means, -one natural, and the other legal.

    Realize, that if the criterion of having American parents is what “natural born citizen” actually means, then by Natural Law the location of the birth of an American son would be irrelevant.

    In that scenario, only the born citizens who were not natural citizens by birth would be the focus of the clause’s exclusion (other than citizens after the adoption).
    It’s focus could not have been American sons born beyond the border because that would violate Natural Law and make them as equally unacceptable as the alien-born, with whom they had nothing in common.
    They would or might have no foreign roots, connections, relatives, inherited culture, subjection, or monarch.
    All they would have regarding the foreign is what Vattel ridiculed as the insignificant location of birth.
    That would not make them countrymen of the foreigners of that land because their American parents would not raise them to be anything other than appreciative of their heroic and free American heritage.

    They would feel spiritually superior to any foreign nation they were raised in if raised abroad because Americans did not respect the authority of Kings and would never bow down to one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: