Pt. II; Revealing the Truth and Exposing Errors

 about the nature and origin of citizenship

Native-birth Citizenship; the Artificial Flower of Law

“There was no debate about the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen… -the child is born to them on U.S. soil…”
Such a view fails to grasp that either native-birth alone is the basis of natural citizenship or inheritance alone is the basis.  Merging the two is not something that has existed anywhere at anytime.  Pick one or the other.  They are the natural or the artificial.  They don’t go together any more than do natural roses and artificial roses.

Those who fail to comprehend that natural members of a society and nation are not determined by a make-or-break factor regarding the place they left the womb, are forced to deny Natural Law and Natural Membership and assert that those American children entering the world on foreign soil are legally aliens and disallowed as citizens having an unalienable right of membership in their parents’ society and nation.
That is making man’s law God and Natural Law inferior to man’s law. That isn’t how natural reality works.   It violates the natural order of life.

A blogger wrote: “Parental allegiance was the deciding factor in determining whether a native-born was a subject-born.” [the non-native-born (foreign immigrants and visitors) did not owe the Crown “perpetual allegiance” for life]
In theory, that is true.  But in practice, it was irrelevant because the issue revolved around children of immigrants, –not children of invaders or foreign ambassadors.
All children of immigrants were born subject to the king, so talk of what their allegiance was or was not did not occur since it was unnecessary.  Thus, in all of such cases, native-birth alone was looked at as the deciding factor, because the other factor was a “given”.  Their immigrant fathers were all subject to owing “temporary allegiance”.
In the colonies, there were no foreign ambassadors, and the enemy aliens who were Indians or French, were not present in American society, so every immigrant’s son born in America was a subject of the king of England regardless of the father’s nationality even though they were subjects because of it if British.
The father’s allegiance simply was not the subject of focus when native-birth was used as a replacement instead (thanks to the fall-out from the Calvin case).            ~    ~    ~
Mario Apuzzo wrote: “and they did not provide that future citizens of the United States could be eligible to be President,”
It is a serious bastardization of the English language to make such a statement since “Citizen of the United States” was considered the most prized and desirable national status on Earth at the time, and is NOT a separate class or group from natural citizens.  Rather, it is the parent group.
NBC was a sub-group comprised of about 98% of the population.  That sub-group became the only eligible group when the members of its sister sub-groups (all citizens up until the Constitution was adopted but who were not members of the nbc sub-group) had died off.
The parent group consisted of three sub-sets;
1. those immigrants born abroad as foreign subjects but naturalized as a citizen of any of the States before Spring of 1789 when the Constitution was ratified,
2. those born of immigrant foreigners and viewed as citizens at birth due to birth in a jus soli State before the Constitution’s adoption.
3. those born of American citizens.
The eligible members of the parent set (all citizens up until Spring 1789) slowly shrank in numbers as they died over time.  Eventually there were none left of the other two sub-groups and only those in the “natural born citizens” sub-group remained eligible.
The presidency for the two other sub-groups then became off-limits (as they ceased to exist), -until Barack Obama emerged from under a rock.
~   ~   ~
~possible qualifications for a newly written eligibility clause:

1. Native birth.  (to citizens or to aliens)
2. Citizen birth. (to an American mother & father)
3. Both 1 & 2 as requirements.
4. Either 1 or 2.
Only 2 is natural.
1. “No person except a native-born citizen shall be eligible…”  -wrong wording.
3. “No person except a native natural born citizen shall be eligible…” -wrong wording again.
4. “No person except a natural born citizen OR a native-born citizen shall be eligible…”  -even worse.
2. “No citizen except a NATURAL born citizen shall be eligible…”

That’s Natural Law.  That’s the natural order of life.  That’s membership by blood which is the natural pattern throughout history and throughout nature.  It’s PRIMAL. Natural.  Everything else is artificial and concocted.
https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/everyone_s-a-traitor-now.pdf
https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/everyones-a-traitor-now/  -blog page.

ajtelles said…   “After Article II Section 1 Clause 5 is amended with a definition that retains… birth on U.S. soil with two U.S. Citizen parents who are married (in 1787 America… DEFINITELY married) to each other BEFORE the child is born,..”
Subjective preferences are irrelevant.
Marriage is irrelevant in nature. Only parentage and nationality matter in natural citizenship.  Nature has no illegitimate off-spring.
American parents, married or not, have no foreign alienage.  A child born to them inside or outside of marriage is a natural American and a natural citizen and not subject to any foreign power.
Try to understand the principle involved and what it does not include. It does not include race, religion, social status, marriage, place of birth or gender.  It only includes origin.
Only origin is a natural factor in natural citizenship.  Any foreign origin is barred. Dual citizenship by parentage is thus disqualifying.

Your natural child is not someone defined by subjective preference.  A natural citizen was any natural child born of any citizen father.
Religion, morality, position, gender, -none of that and more was related to transmission of nationality via blood attachment to parents with a settled single nationality.   Like father, …like son.  A no-brainer.
Every natural citizen who was white, male, Protestant, educated, moral, and popular could serve as President.  All he would need is an American father, and to meet the age and residency requirements.
American husbands all had American wives.
American parents all had American children.
All American children born of American parents were eligible to be President and possibly electable if they were as described above.

The founders never even imagined the nativist fantasy that weds native-birth to natural inheritance as co-requirements of natural citizenship since every Natural Law writing from Vattel to their era understood that natural nationality was by descent alone.  From father to son.  Nature has no other added element connecting birth and borders.
The addition of native-birth is an unnatural contaminant.  Everyone born of American parents is an American, -not by law, -not by legal fiction, but by nature.  Its all about the natural pattern of inherited character.  That is pure unadulterated natural law.
A blog comment said: “Natural born citizens are the only persons born citizens of the United States.  All other persons either acquire their citizenship at birth or after…”
This statement overlooks what needs to be parsed.  And that is the reality that for almost a century after July 4, 1776, all original citizenship was State citizenship.  Immigrant-fathered people born in jus soli honoring States were born as
citizens, and their State citizenship made them, by extension, citizens of the nation also.
So by the State supremacy over citizenship and immigration, both the natural citizen children and the jus soli born children were both born as citizens of the United States because there was no federal provision to not recognize the American nationality of alien-fathered children. (nor was there one to recognize them)
That was why there were doubts, as mentioned in Minor v Happersett, since not all States allowed jus soli citizenship as they all had previously done before the revolution.

The Wong opinion resolved those doubts as it was extrapolated to all other immigrant parents and their domestically born off-spring.  But it did not create new doubt about the actual nature of such alien-fathered citizens by conflating them with natural born citizen children of American parents.
The word “acquire” is vitally important. (“All other persons either acquire their citizenship at birth or after…”)   Natural citizens never acquire citizenship because they are born being citizens by nature, while those who are alien-born do acquire citizenship at birth and are not born being citizens by nature.
Their citizenship can be prevented by merely stepping over the border and giving birth on non-American soil whereas for the natural born children of Americans, borders are not relevant.
In addition, such citizenship via legal acquisition exists in the realm of human control, since the high court could reverse the Wong decision or the 14th Amendment citizenship clause could be repealed, but nothing can prevent or negate natural citizenship since it is organic and innate.
It is an element of one’s political character inherited from natives or new citizens of the nation.
So “acquired” citizenship is doubly vulnerable, -to the mother’s location when labor beings and ends in delivery, and to a change of American law.

That form of citizenship is not natural because it is not derived from a natural relationship, a blood relationship with parents who are members of the nation. Instead it is the result of a legal mandate that produces a legal relationship and legal citizenship.
But no legal citizen is eligible to be President.
Natural citizens are born like healthy babies, but legal citizens are born like babies with HIV.  HIV is not a natural element of babies.  It is acquired, it is added to them and they are born with it (just like legal  citizens are born with acquired citizenship).  Even though HIV is in their blood, that does not make it part of their nature.
~     ~     ~
It seems to me that Mr Apuzzo’s concept of alienage is inaccurate although logically valid.  He equates it to some invisible cloak that citizenship law removes.  That is a concept that one can imagine, but it is not based on reality.
Alienage can never be removed and need not be removed in order to become a U.S. Citizen by law.
Government can naturalize foreigners regardless of anything, -including prior citizenship which has not been renounced to their own government.
The foreign ties with which foreigners were born and raised are with them forever, and children born to them are inculcated with those ties and values by their immigrant parents and relatives who raise them in the consciousness of their foreign homeland, (-unless they don’t because they disrespect it).
It is because of those ties, those bonds, that no naturalized citizen nor an alien-born citizen is allowed to be President.
From birth there must be no direct bonds to any foreign land.  Only American roots or American bonds are allowed.
When the naturalization oath was personal and individual, it meant the severing of those old attachments by one’s sacred vow to America and her Constitution.
Children born to such Americans are presumed to be free of alienage because of the vow of Renunciation.  So they are treated as natural born citizens even though their parents have no American roots of their own.
Being native-born is accepted as a reasonable substitute for birth to natives when one’s parents are naturalized foreigners.
~     ~     ~
Out of linguistic convenience, we abuse the word “naturalization” and illegitimately expand its application to situations which are actually not naturalization.
The only real, actual naturalization is that which comes about by the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation.
The children of naturalized parents are not citizens by naturalization but by statutes that recognize jus sanguinis national membership (by right of blood).  The children of foreigners become Americans because they became children of Americans.  From parents to young their new nationality is inherited by blood connection.  It is a natural right to be a member, -a part, of the society and nation of one’s own parents.
Those born of foreigners who have not become Americans should not be described as “naturalized”, but as something else because their US citizenship nor does result from either parent taking the oath.
If born abroad of a single American parent,  dual-nationality children can be labeled “statutory citizens”, and those born in the U.S. of one or two foreigners as “constitutional citizens” or “14th Amendment citizens”, or “WKA citizens”, and both groups can be called “legal citizens”.

Law has no application in natural citizenship because there is nothing natural about man-made law.  Instead of saying that 14th Amendment citizens are naturalized at birth, it would be far more accurate to say they are granted or provided citizenship from birth.  -Or so one might think.

But in America we have a fundamental fiction of law which holds sway over making outsiders into insiders, and by it one needs to recognize that children born of aliens are, at birth, made into natural citizens via the operation of our fictional legal force of law known as natural-ization; -making natural that which is not.  In the case of 14th Amendment natural-ization, it is automatic, as apposed to voluntary.
Real naturalization is only something that is personal and by one’s own volition.  It is not something that happens to one without one’s consent or knowledge.
Were that not literally true, then North Korea could “naturalize” anyone that steps foot on NKPR soil.
Would you ever agree that people so “naturalized” were in reality naturalized according to what real naturalization is?
The 14th Amendment was misconstrued by the Supreme Court but its accepted effect was not to
naturalize alien-born children, but to citizen-ize them at birth.   But the application of our national legal fiction of citizenship equality views them as the same as all other natural citizens.

The use of the term “naturalized” should only apply to the process of becoming an American citizen by one’s own choice, and being thus made, by fiction of law, into a new natural(ized) citizen like all of the rest of the American people.  But it is inappropriate, philosophically, in regard to describing their foreign-born children.  They are jus sanguinis citizens possessing whatever nationality their parents possess (following natural law).

But being a natural citizen by a fiction of law is not the same as being a natural citizen by birth.

One must be born as a natural citizen in order to be eligible to be President, and that was the reason that John Jay underlined the word “born”.
He would never have underlined a single word in a term of legal artifice because the meaning is unitarian, -and single words cannot be singled out.
Ray said to me: “If foreign born children of US citizens where in fact “natural born citizens” there would have been no need for the 1790 statute!”
They were only mentioned in order to protect and declare their natural birthright as Americans to serve their nation in every capacity, including and particularly as President.

Their mention was not an exercise of non-existent authority.  It was instead entirely a declaration of natural fact so that people possessed of the dogma that grips his mistaken mind would not take the attitude that he takes. -An attitude that greatly denigrates the breadth of what is included in the high privilege of American CITIZENSHIP.
What is included is THE RIGHT, (as mentioned by Vattel), of CITIZEN fathers to pass their membership to their sons and daughters.
But he, in effect, proclaims that Vattel was full of crap, -as if “American fathers have no such right!.. -and are merely subjects of the STATE, and will take whatever it is willing to allow them!”
Understand this: No founding father, no framer of the Constitution, would have taken their natural right to pass their natural national membership to their children and given it up to any government, -including the one they were creating to serve them and their countrymen.
They would have considered any man holding such a view to be a traitor to American principles and to their Natural Rights as freemen of a free country.
~     ~     ~
Mario wrote; “A law-born citizen of the United States is any child who by the Fourteenth Amendment (aided by an Act of Congress which is 8 U.S. Code. Section 1401(a))….”
thalightguy pointed out;
“8 U.S.C is not an Act of Congress. (8 U.S.C is merely non-positive law.)  There are currently 26 positive law titles in the Code [which] are identified with an asterisk, but Title 8 does not have an asterisk.”        ~  ~  ~
It is a misunderstanding of law to fail to grasp that not all legal code is actual legislated act by constitutional authority.
Elements of legal code, as well as clauses within individual acts, are written for the purpose of stating facts for the record, -of illuminating truth and clarifying questions, -not of making new legal facts by legislative authority.
Anyone who can understand that Title 8 Sec. 1401 was written solely to bring together in one place all American laws dealing with citizenship, -consolidating the manifold disparate elements of nationality law, should also be able to understand that the first Congress inserted into the first Naturalization Act in 1790 language which served the exact same purpose as Title 8.
Statements were written into it for clarifying confusion and misconceptions; -not to make new facts, but to state existing facts.

What were the existing facts? Children take after their father and are born as members of his nation.
Stating that the children of naturalized foreigners were to be considered as U.S. citizens was not an exercise of citizenship authority, but merely a recognition of natural law.
Also, Congress, -including James Monroe, “the father of the Constitution”, clarified that all children of Americans are natural born citizens by nature, -a similar recognition or affirmation of natural law.  American children are Americans by their inherited political nature, -not by the intervention of lawmakers.
Even little children know that they belong to their parents naturally, and to whatever group they belong to as well because the two are naturally inseparable.        ~        ~        ~
Mario’s theory of citizenship is like a golden orb.  It seems very solid and precious.  But it consists of two halves.  One half is his understanding that natural citizenship flows from parents to children, with their membership in their society and national family being their natural inheritance.

That half of his view is golden, pure, real, and solid.  The problem is the other half.  It consists of believing that the irrelevant factor of where one’s mother’s womb was located during the brief and inconsequential moment when they exited it is also vitally important to whether or not one can belong to their natural national family.  In other words, the earth location of a brief event in space and time determines who and what they are for the rest of their lives merely because that brief event happened to be the occasion of their entrance into the world.

That event had nothing whatsoever to do with nature because that event is defined not by its origin but its location, -as was the case under the dictatorship of the kings of England.
Their system of human ownership (“my people, my subjects, exist solely for my benefit”) was overthrown and rejected by the self-liberated Americans who only recognized the kinship of blood to be the basis of naturally belonging to their parents’ country.
But Mario, (-and others before him going all of the way back to the mind-set of the Loyalists and the system by which they were indoctrinated), returns to the vomit of the royal dictatorship by embracing the King’s criterion for national membership; i.e., -the birth event occurring within the nation’s borders.

That half of Mario’s golden orb of citizenship theory is not Gold, but is pyrite, –Fools Gold, and only fools willingly embrace it because It stands as an affront to the natural order of life among all sentient species that form bonds of connection & attachment, and is the antithesis of the natural principles on which American freedom and independence are based.

by Adrien Nash  March 2014  obama–nation.com
Revealing the Truth and Exposing Falsehoods  Pt. 1 & 2

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”.

8 Responses to Pt. II; Revealing the Truth and Exposing Errors

  1. davidfarrar says:

    Is there a typo in this sentence: “But it did not create new doubt about the actual nature of such alien-fathered citizens by conflating them with natural born citizen children of American parents.”?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  2. arnash says:

    I assume you are having questions about the conceptual elements of that sentence. So I’ll clarify further. The high court resolved the doubt as to whether or not alien-born children were U.S. citizens when native-born of immigrants, but through its opinion that they are citizens, it did not create *new* doubts about whether or not they were also natural born citizens. It never brought the two together is any way nor equated them. It left the nature of those immigrant-born citizens as being simply citizens. They didn’t even hint that simple citizenship is the same as natural citizenship, -or that legal citizens are the same as natural citizens.

    • davidfarrar says:

      Yes, I see your point now.

      I have begun a campaign to raise the consciousnesses of the members of Congress as to why they need to act and resolve this issue by the amendment process, in the form two possible amendments — well, here is what I recently wrote on WND:

      Before we can demand verification of presidential qualifications, as we should, we must first clear up the actually meaning of what an exactly is an Art. II, §I, cl. 4 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Nobody really knows. But as one of only three qualifications of the president and vice-president of the United States, this is not the place for confusion or misunderstanding. Civil wars have been fought over much less.

      Although the precise meaning of an Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen is presently unclear, the founders and framers of the US Const. were quite clear as to exactly where the awesome power to set the qualifications of the president and vice-president must reside: in the hands of We, the People, not in Congress and not in the courts.

      It seems to me only common sense that Congress should show just a little leadership in this regard and clear this matter up as soon as possible, by proposing two amendments: one based on common law, which states anyone born a US Citizen is an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen, and the second based on natural law, stating any one born in the United States of citizen parents is an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen.

      I would hope if Sen. Cruz intends to run as a 2016 presidential candidate, he would spearhead this movement in Congress for the common good of the Republic.

      What do you think?

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

  3. arnash says:

    One does not have to read between the lines to know that I recognize that both options you mention are incorrect. Natural membership is conveyed only naturally, and that means via blood connection and nothing else.
    Everything else is artificial, including the geographical boundaries of the location of the mother during the passing event of delivery of a child from womb to world.

    The irrelevant fact of birth location has absolutely nothing to do with the process of life from conception to delivery. It is all organic, biological, natural.
    One’s national membership is no more dependent on one’s mother’s location when they were born than their family membership depends on it. All natural connections are blood connections. Parents to children. Soil is not a part of the process of life and the subjective force of natural bonds, including family bonds and national bonds. Those bonds are all that matters.

    Everything else is a matter of permission of the natural citizens to be members of their national club, which they allow via their laws, even granting that allowance from birth for the native-born of immigrants.
    That does not make them natural members. It only makes them legal members. They were not born of citizen DNA. That DNA or political character is passed to children anywhere in the universe that they are born. It doesn’t matter what State they are born in, nor what nation. They cannot not be Americans because they are born of Americans. Americans produce Americans. Chinese produce Chinese. Eskimos produce Eskimos. etc.

  4. The Magic M says:

    “They were not born of citizen DNA.”

    Then how did, for example, Abraham Lincoln prove he was an NBC? No DNA testing. Mothers’ testimony? Puh-leaze, you would never accept that from Obama. Checkmate, your theory fails.

    • davidfarrar says:

      I am sure arnash can answer your question better than I, but let’s be fair, Obama family history is just a wee bit more complicated than Lincoln’s; wouldn’t you agree? Plus the fact that Obama’s own website “fightthesmeras.com states, citing FactCheck.org:

      “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

      British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

    • arnash says:

      Back down here on planet Earth, we understand that there was not only no one for Lincoln to prove anything to, but there was nothing to prove. He was born of American parents who conveyed by natural inheritance their American political DNA to their son. He was born being what they were; -human, white, American.

  5. arnash says:

    In the young U.S. less than 1% of the population was electable to the presidency.

    The nation was founded on the principle of equality, which meant there was no royal class of citizens, nor a noble class.

    There was only the natural class and the natural-ized class, -and it wasn’t even really separate from the natural class, as is seen in the Pennsylvania Constitution.

    It does not even use the word “citizen” because after a year of residence, foreigners had all of the civic rights of natives. All were equally invested in the enterprises of self-goverance and financial progress.

    But when it came to the one unique position of Command in Chief of the nation, instead of being all about inclusion, Americans were all about exclusion, beginning with the opening words: “NO PERSON…”.

    That’s quite an opposite spin from “Any person..”. So who was excluded literally and sociologically?

    About 99% of the population, beginning with all foreigners (about 2% of inhabitants) since they were not natural born citizens; and then all American women (about half of the remaining 98%.

    Then about half of the 49% of American men for being too young,and perhaps 20% too old to be ambitious and energetic enough to run, leaving between 15-20%.

    Eighty percent of them (or more) were not college educated, leaving 4% or less, of which some were not of Anglo-Saxon background, had stains on their moral character (divorce, adultery, graft, financial corruption, etc.), were Catholic, or were not patriots but perhaps suspected loyalists or sympathizers; and also those who were passive, unknown, unremarkable, unaccomplished and un-endowed men with nothing to recommend them to voters.

    Leaving less than 1% both eligible and electable. People are picky, especially when it comes to wielding the ultimate power of the nation. [roadblock #1? subjection from birth to a foreign power through a foreign father.]

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: