Foreign-born Presidents & the Native-birth Heresy
March 13, 2014 Leave a comment
Are American children born on non-American soil even Americans by any natural criteria? Could they simply and completely be nothing more than aliens?
If twins were born on opposite sides of the Canadian border, would they naturally be members of two different nations or would one merely have dual-citizenship by law while the other didn’t? Would they not both be natural members of their parents’ country, the USA?
These kinds of questions have been falsely answered in the minds of some, and the result of the doctrine they’ve embraced makes the answers totally unacceptable since they embrace worst-case scenarios. In the case of twins, the one born in Canada would be considered an alien and not an American regardless of being born of Americans and naturally inheriting their political character, (i.e., nationality).
The dogma that labels such American children as foreigners is something resulting from the unholy combination of Natural Law with the King’s law. It is an element of a miscontruence of the meaning of the constitutional label that must describe who can be President. That label is “a natural born citizen”.
A misconception has taken hold in the minds of those who’ve embraced the neo-nativist, nationalist doctrine that seeks to explain what that label means. The side-effect of that blind belief is that such a citizen is superior to other citizens by having solely American roots, -thus being free of any allegiance to any other nation. Only some put it in the courser term of “higher allegiance”, -measuring allegiance in degrees by some magical measuring stick, and even more magical, measuring it in babies, newborns.
Needless to say, babies have nothing whatsoever to do with any such concept. All they are devoted to are the urges for food, water, stimulation, sleep, and love.
Such a view thinks of natural born citizens as special when in fact they are the most ordinary citizens of all, since they are merely the children of citizens. -No exotic foreign parents from far-away exotic lands. Just ordinary Americans born of Americans. That, in many eras in American history, was just about everyone. It’s absurd to be considered special when you are so normal.
-But I digress.
The heart of the resurrected dogma is the belief that the United States, like a dog returning to its vomit, somehow re-embraced the totalitarian doctrine of royal dictators (jus soli). Under that doctrine, “anyone born on my land belongs to me (the King) for life. Even if your parents were only on my land for a day or so, you are mine anyway, -my subject by birth, -meaning not by birth to my subjects but by birth in my domain.
-In other words, its all about me, and not about the nation. Even if your parents are members of another nation and not mine, you belong to me regardless because I am England! The nation, the country, its traditions and law aren’t all that’s relevant since I’m in the equation, and that being the case, you belong to me even though you do not belong to my country. Your parents are not a part of it, never were, and you inherited no membership in it from them, -making you an outsider like them, -but my outsider, my alien-born subject.”
That is soil-based, borders-determined nationality. The American revolutionaries cast down that system along with the king who promulgated it in his colonies. The British system of royal human ownership as a mandate of the king and his government ended on July 4th, 1776. But it was very deeply ingrained in the American psyche since that was what everyone was under for a century and a half, -just as they were under British rule and British governors.
But that past was swept away by the revolution, and the children of the natives of the colonies were members of their society from then on based on having been the progeny of members, born as members by being born of members, -members by inheritance of the membership of their parents, -born into membership as the next generation of natural members of the society and country of their father and mother.
But the revived nativist doctrine resurrected an old delusion that sought to reconcile two competing theories of national belonging; -the King’s way, -and the natural way. British common law and pure natural law. States were divided as to which was “the law of the land” and as a consequence, there was no law of the land other than the law of the independent individual nations of the union.
Some States embraced the King’s way so some genius came up with some sort of a compromise when it came to who was and was not eligible to be President. He simply combined the two and thereby imposed in his doctrine the requirement that both apply. -That the President not only be a natural American citizen but also a native-born American citizen. Is that what the founders had in mind when they penned, included, but never articulated the meaning of “natural born citizen”?
What could be wrong with that combo since it was aimed at protecting American security with a strong avoidance of foreign influence? Well, plenty could be wrong with it and it could be described by the one word “myopic”.
While the self-appointed definers of the term strongly embraced the natural way, they also strongly embraced the over-thrown system as well, and combined the two as dual requirements in order to be a natural member of the American nation.
In order to achieve that in a rational manner would have required that the framers of the Constitution had required explicitly that the President be no one except a “native-born natural citizen”, -and yet they rejected or never even considered the requirement of such a label.
But by combining the two avenues of national membership, the side-effect is to make every American child not born within the claimed sovereignty of the U.S. a foreigner, -even if they were the child of a President who was a child of a President with roots going back to before the revolution.
I don’t know about you, but that seems a little bit extreme, don’t you think? What kind of god-awful side-effect is that, and why would anyone think it’s acceptable? Or legitimate? After all, how stupid would our founding fathers have had to have been to institute such a doctrine of national belonging?
Since “natural born citizens” are in fact nearly the totality of all American citizens, -proportion-wise, it is pretty lame to argue that they were some other different special class when almost everyone was a member of that class.
Nevertheless, they cling to their nativist doctrine because it sounds so warm and fuzzy that Presidents must not only be American-born but must also be America born. Born in the USA! Hallelujah! But that “requirement” is nothing but the British pig with lipstick on it. It is a mandatory criterion of national membership based on artificial human borders which have nothing whatsoever to do with national belonging that is natural.
One either belongs to their parent’s country because they belong to their parents, or they belong to government and whatever it ascribes as the criteria of national membership, -including birth location.
If government is considered to possess the authority to determine the parameters of national membership across the board, -with natural inheritance not a natural right, then government is god.
If government is perceived to hold the authority to reject its own children based purely on the arbitrary criterion of birth within its own artificial boundaries, then it owns you and your children because it can dictate who it will accept and reject instead of natural bonds and natural inheritance determining who and what you belong to.
We’ve all grown up brainwashed by the belief that we were very fortunate to have been born in America, -but off to the side was the real truth that we were very fortunate to have been born of American parents, -who happened to be living in America, -although millions do not, -including a brother and a cousin and a nephew of mine.
The children American parents give birth to within or outside of America’s borders, are American by a fundamental law of nature. Children can’t naturally be something different from their parents since they inherit their nature, and character, including their political character.
Every nation on Earth recognizes that natural fact, -including atheist regimes, (even if they allow citizenship for all children born within their borders) and that is because the primacy of blood connections trumps all other alternative criteria, including birth place.
If you have a natal blood connection to members of a country, then you are legally included as a member by birth. If that connection is a dual connection through both parents, then you don’t even need the permission of government to be a member of your parents’ country. You are automatically a member.
Domestic birth is not required. You are a natural citizen of your parents’ nation because of your natural blood connection via the transmission of life and nature, -life and name, -life and status, life and national membership.
But if only one of your parents is a U.S. citizen, then you do need permission because you are a half-outsider and have no natural right.
In free societies, -as well as in some that aren’t so free, like Cuba, jus soli membership (by right of soil) is not an opposing system to jus sanguinis (by right of blood) but rather is an adjunct system to provide legal membership to native-born children of outsiders who have adopted a nation other than their homeland to live in and be a part of.
Without the allowance of law for such immigrant-born children, they would be stigmatized as alien outsiders without the rights of natural members of the nation, -second class inhabitants who are not even citizens but merely legal denizens at best.
Governments don’t see that as an acceptable situation, nor did the Supreme Court of the United States in 1898 when it declared by a split vote that the words of the 14th Amendment mean that such alien-fathered children are American citizens. By that opinion of the court, jus soli was made official as a national policy for all legal immigrant-born children.
That decision impacted perhaps less than 2% of the population. It didn’t affect immigrant naturalized citizens, nor children born to them since they were born of Americans. It only affected native-born children born of immigrants who were not Americans. So for a small slice of the population, it was a very good thing. But it becomes a very bad thing when it is falsely perceived of as being the established policy of national membership for the other 97-98% of the population who were born of citizens.
They did not need an opinion of any court, nor a law of the Congress, nor a clause of the Constitution to make them the natural citizens that they were born as. They were born as automatic natural members of the nation that their forefathers founded. They don’t need the government’s permission to belong to it.
And if the government pretended that they did, it would be acting exactly like the British royal tyrant who made the same sort of claim. “Your nationality belongs to me! -and is determined by what I say it is determined by, -and I say it is determined by the brief moment when you said ‘hello, world, I’m here.’ That blink-of-an-eye here-and-gone moment determines who you belong to for the rest of your entire life, says I, the King. If it happened to have happened on my land, you’re mine regardless of what land your parents belong to and live in and is their home. My way and wishes are supreme! To hell with your law of nature and natural belonging.”
That is the true face of the glorious criterion of native-birth in the USA as an added requirement imposed on the natural-citizen children of the nation. It’s not so glorious when you are forced to get to know it really well, -as in North Korea where the government owns everyone because natural liberty does not exist, -natural rights do not exist, natural belonging does not… wait!… yes it does exist, but it is primarily at the national level. Everyone “naturally” belongs to the government first and foremost. All other relationships are secondary.
The nativist doctrine of required native-birth has a side that is utterly un-American, -even anti-American, because it is based on dogmatic, autocratic authority imposed against the principle of natural membership (which is an element of the laws of nature).
It is like the ancient city of Sodom in the Bible story of Lot. Lot and his family were warned by messengers of God to get the heck out of Sodom because it was going to be destroyed by fire and brimstone from the sky. But Lot did not want to leave since he had his life there, just like the colonies had jus soli perennially imposed in their lives as the status quo of their national environment.
But something that is innately wicked should be abandoned just as Lot was forced to abandon prosperous Sodom. It is something that needs to be escaped from because it hides a dark side which is the chains of government ownership via its supposed authority to decide who does and does not belong to America as a natural member. Either it has the authority to decide, -or no one has any authority to decide things of a fundamental nature since they are only determined by eternal principles drawn from the laws of nature.
The neo-nativists who support and proclaim the nativist doctrine of jus soli natural citizenship (native-birth plus American parents) have a pesky fly in their soup, a flaw in their Matrix, and it is the declaration made by the founding fathers in the first naturalization act of the first Congress in which they made it clear that foreign-born American children are to be recognized as the “natural born citizens” that they are.
Well! How dared they! How can one be a natural born citizen if born abroad when one simply must be native-born in order to be “a natural born citizen” and thus eligible to be President?
They are forced to propose very demeaning explanations regarding the quality of the intelligence & statesmanship of the first Congress when it put that declaration right there in the very public naturalization act for all to see and understand. One view has to be wrong, and of course it was the lame-brain founders who didn’t realize what they were doing.
That view is strengthened in the navitists minds by noting that all subsequent revisions altered that designation to read that all foreign-born American children are “Citizens of the United States”.
That change removed the issue of the nature of their citizenship which the first Congress deliberately emphasized in order to defend their right to seek the office of the President by being constitutionally eligible (and not merely assumed to be aliens or naturalized citizens).
With the presidential eligibility language changed to the same label used for children of all Americans, -but specifically of naturalized citizens who were the focus of the naturalization acts, -namely the highly prized status of being a Citizen of the United States, the nativists jumped on that change as “proof” that Congress had down-graded their status to one that is not eligible to be President, -as is the case for Citizens of the United States who were naturalized through their foreign father when he became a U.S. Citizen.
The later revisions of the first act, instead of addressing the foreign-born American children in a separate sentence, lumped them in with the children of naturalized citizens in one sentence and labeled them Citizens of the United States. Later Congresses assumed that the reason that the first Congress mentioned the born-abroad citizen-children was to make it manifest that they were not to be considered as foreigners, -but that was not a concern of the first Congress, nor would it have led them to deliberately chose the label that they chose.
Rather it was that they might not be considered eligible to serve as President (as is precisely the case with the nativist doctrine).
So according to the neo jus soli disciples’ mistaken reasoning, addressing both the foreigner-fathered and the American-fathered children together shows that Congress changed the nature of the later’s nationality character to that of the foreigner-fathered children who were not eligible to be President.
But they fail to grasp that the switch to the broadest label for American citizens was not a change of any kind, nor that Congress possessed any constitutional authority to meddle in matters of natural law and its supremacy over nationality.
They believe that Congress changed them from being what they were born as (natural born American citizens) transforming them magically into naturalized citizens ineligible to be President because they lacked the magically glorious characteristic of being born of a women who just happened to have been situated on the soil of one of the States when her baby made the transition from her womb to the world. “-poor child; he lost the presidential eligibility lottery thanks to his mother not getting her behind back on our precious American soil.”
They err by embracing the assumption that “a citizen of the United States” is an altogether different and separate class than that of natural born citizens, rather than merely the parent class for all citizens.
That is obviously a leap into irrational thinking, but it is necessary in order to explain how the third Congress “corrected” the “error” of the very first Congress which “erred” by declaring America’s foreign-birthed children “natural born citizens”.
They go even further by assuming that Congress had the authority to make such a change in the character of their citizenship, -even though they were not in fact foreigners in need of permission to be “considered as” citizens of any kind.
All of the acts use the phrase “shall be considered as…” when referring to the children of naturalized foreigners and foreign-birthed Americans, but the designations they were given in the very first act (respectively; “citizens of the United States”; and “natural born citizens”) were erroneously assumed to be an exercise of the supreme power of Congress to naturalize foreigners.
The problem is that Congress was not given such authority by the Constitution, and never assumed that it had been given it in the epoch of those acts. Rather, Congress was merely stating unequivocally for the record what their status was by natural law. It was not making it so since it was automatically so via blood connections.
The children of naturalized fathers immediately became what their father had become upon naturalization because the children always follow the status of the head of the family, whose name they are known by, and who is their master, protector, guardian, custodian, mentor, progenitor and father. By the law of nature they cannot be other than what he is.
All Congress did was declare the consequence for them when their father became an American. His action made them Americans also because they were a part of him. The same went for his foreign wife. She instantly became an American through him. She and their children became “derivative citizens” because their citizenship was derived from his.
Now lets examine the logic error they fall victim to by surmising that the “citizens of the United States” label (which applied to children of naturalized foreigners) is a separate category from that of natural born citizens instead of merely being a parent category. An apropos analogy is in order.
Suppose you are an elderly poodle owner who wants your pets to be well cared for when you pass, so you include them in your will for life-long care. You will states that all of your poodles are to be provided for. But five years later you have twice as many dogs and none of the new ones are poodles. Your will only specifies that your poodles are to be cared for, and so you change its language to state that your dogs are to be cared for. Have you thereby changed the nature of your poodles into a different sort of dog (like bulldog) simply by not labeling them as poodles? Or did you merely employ the name of their parent group (dogs) and not effect any change whatsoever in them. They are still poodles as well as dogs. They are both, -not one or the other!
That seems like straight-forward common sense that even a child can comprehend quite readily, and yet their bias in favor of defending their doctrine of the necessity of native-birth alters the way their minds work. That is needed in order to defend the belief that Congress has the “power” to change the political nature of people when it does not have that authority under the Constitution; (-but that has not stopped the federal government and its courts from stealing that authority away from the States via illegitimate court rulings).
Anyway, by ascribing such authority to the government (Congress) a false equivalency to the British Crown is thereby created and under that equivalency the government can determine the criteria for national membership, -including an added requirement of native-birth just as was the case under the royal dictator when his government identified native-birth as the criterion of subjectship among all who were not children of hostile invaders or foreign ambassadors.
Under that regime of nationality assignment one cannot argue that such a status quo view of nationality is illegitimate because it is presented as the true and legitimate authority of the government, when in fact the government has no such authority over the natural citizens of any free nation, -including our own, -nor those who walk in our shadow. All natural citizens are members of their own country by inheritance of membership from their parents. There are no other extraneous factors. It is all natural blood connection.
Hence the absence in the Constitution of terms such as “legal-born citizen”, native-born citizen, or immigrant-born citizen.
Neither legal constructs, mandates, policies, statutes & opinions, -nor birth location coordinates, or immigrant legal status have any connection or bearing on that which is purely natural, and that’s why no other adjective was used to modify the term and requirement that the President be “a born citizen”. Only “natural” was used and no others are allowed, -with even “native” being excluded.
The only way that the constitutional language is not subverted is with “natural” meaning what it actually means and not what some want it to mean.
by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com