NOT Understanding the Nature of American Citizenship
February 12, 2014 3 Comments
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–nation.com