The Law of Natural Belonging, Pt. 3

Versus U.S. “Imperial” Citizenship Policy

The American national history and policy regarding citizenship for foreigners is in three distinct periods. The second began when the new nation began in 1789, and the third began in 1898 with the Wong opinion.
Up until then, single foreign women, with rare exceptions, could not become Americans except by marrying an American. Why not? Because they were under the headship of their father well into adulthood and carried his foreign nationality as their own. They remained as a member of their own family and that family was foreign.

Only sons could step outside of the family and attach themselves to another nation (the U.S.) and seek to become a member of it.  Doing so in America involved a serious severing of one’s old loyalty & obedience to their own nation and government. The severing via the taking of the solemn Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation was akin to cutting an umbilical cord that attached them to their homeland and it’s society, and rejecting the umbrella of protection of its government, -which was accompanied by an obligation of obedience toward it.

To understand that second period of American history, one needs to think of the immigrant foreign family as a single unit, -headed by the husband & father, encapsulated within a political placenta attached to an umbilical cord rooted in their foreign homeland, -the place to which they could return and continue their lives there as natural members and natives of their country.
The attitude of our national government was to view them as a single unit separated from all Americans by being surrounded by the barrier of foreign membership. If a birth occurred within that foreign sphere, -within the placenta with a foreign attachment, it was as if it did not occur on American soil but on foreign soil because the foreign subjectship of the father surrounded him and his, -the whole family unit.

That is exactly the same as the attitude toward a foreign minister or ambassador if his wife gave birth within one of the united States. He was alien as well as all within his family regardless of their birth location.
The sphere that surrounded the immigrant family can be thought of as comprised of two hemispheres.

One is the natural connection to his own kinsmen or countrymen, while the other is his location within the sovereign borders of his own nation. He and his own were “within and under the jurisdiction” of his own nation while living within it. But while living within the American States half of that sphere was no longer surrounding them.

Within some States, that openness and closeness to “American soil” fostered the attitude, policy and law that any children that might be born to him on America soil would be considered as a citizen of the State into which he had emigrated.
But that was not consistent with the view adopted by the national government which was ultimately responsible for dealing with international relationships, including those regarding foreign subjects. It looked at the child of a foreigner first and foremost as a natural subject of the father’s sovereign ruler or government since the child inherited his membership in his own homeland.

The American government detested dual-citizenship, -viewing it like bigamy. “Belong to one nation or belong to another; do not expect us to view you as belonging to two different nations. That is like belonging to two different husbands. Detestable.”
As the result of the two different approaches to membership, (State vs. National) there were unresolved doubts that such domestically born children were really American citizens. Those doubts were not in regard to whether or not they were “natural born citizens”, but whether or not they were Americans or foreigners.

The issue wasn’t in regard to alien-born females because all females were in effect merely American subjects or nationals, -but rather their brothers. If they were viewed as State citizens due to native birth, and were elected to local or State office as adults, then were they also eligible for national office when the national government did not recognized their national citizenship?
That issue was not one of law but of national policy (since there was no national law regarding it). Policy decisions were set by the executive branch which made such decisions based on sociological preferences, and / or prior precedence.
So, under the rule of two separate governments, State citizenship was not the same as national citizenship, in particular regarding the right to serve as President.

Native-born children of aliens were foreigners by birth to a foreigner who might have always remained a foreigner, and the U.S. government rejected the notion of dual-citizenship attaching to an individual or a family unit.
What happened in 1898 was the Supreme Court deciding that the original and intended meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause… “and subject to the jurisdiction” [of the United States] would mean something else, something much less than what they meant as written and ratified.

That something that they dropped out of sight was the requirement written in the amendment’s predecessor; the Civil Rights Act of 1866, (written just months before the 14th Amendment) which required of the native-born that in order to be recognized as U.S. citizens, they not be “subject to any foreign power” because such subjection came with one’s natural obligation to defend one’s own nation.

That obligation was vested in the men of the family, starting with the father, and inherited by his sons upon maturity.
Foreign men, by American law and policy, were not subject to that obligation as American men were because they were not citizens since they were all still within the remaining “hemisphere” of their foreign attachment and jurisdiction.

When the high court ruled that the native-born children of immigrants were Americans regardless of the families intact foreign attachment, then that opened the door to the view that if the child had American roots via its birth within & under American jurisdiction, then the father and foreign-born sons also had connections to their new nation and thus shared the responsibility for national defense.
From then on, they were subject to military conscription, even though they were viewed as foreign nationals. And that remains the policy to this day. They must register with Selective Service and must serve if called, -or face years in the federal penitentiary, -even though they are not Americans.

In response to the court’s opinion, the Attorney General, an elite member of the “ruling class” insulated from the realities of the common man, ignorantly adopted the policy that subjection to American sovereign authority was not a consideration and in effect had no meaning as concerns the male responsibility in national membership.

He decreed that all children born on U.S. soil except ambassador’s children, were American citizens. That was his ignorant and flawed interpretation of what the Supreme Court’s opinion extended to mean by full extrapolation.
He considered only one thing, birth on U.S. soil; -being within the “jurisdiction” even though not being under or “subject” to it.

The subjection required for citizenship he misinterpreted to refer to the automatic state of all persons within U.S. borders except foreign ambassadors* even though all other foreign guests are just as non-subject to the Americans’ and immigrants’ obligation of national defense. *(Ambassadors are subject to (but cannot be prosecuted for) violations of municipal law.)

He thus eviscerated the intent of the 14th Amendment and its requirement of full subjection to American sovereign authority, along with the concept of family unity under the father, and natural foreign attachments as a factor in determining American citizenship for any and every alien-fathered baby born within U.S. jurisdiction, -even though not subject to it as required. ~   ~   ~
~ When you were born, by what right did you belong to your mother (and she to you)? I know what you’re thinking; you had every right, both natural and legal. But you are mistaken. Your right was 100% a natural right and 0% a legal right (if one is referring to an actual law).
All that the authority of government does is to recognized and validate your natural right. Your natural right is an issue of blood, and whose you inherited. By your blood relationship to your mother, and your father, you are a natural member of their family, -and government is not needed to validate and codify that right via law, but is obligated to support and defend it as an “a priori” right.
That right never needed to be written because it is intrinsic to the very nature of all living sentient creatures who have a higher nature that includes natural bonds. That natural right exists side-by-side with the right to live, and it can be called “the right to belong”.

No one gives it to you, and no government grants it. No matter how authoritarian a government might be, that right is sacrosanct. It cannot be violated without a very good reason springing only from protecting a child from harm.

That natural right of belonging is not bounded by one’s immediate family only. It extends to the greater family of which they are a part as members, from clans and tribes, to countries and nations.

Every child is born with the natural right to belong to whatever societal group the parents belong to. That is not a right that our founding fathers would have ever ceded to government caprice, policy, sentiment, or legislation. It was their inviolable right and would never be surrendered for any reason regardless of where on Earth their sons and daughters might be born.
And it was not surrendered, -even though many who fail to understand fundamental American principles might think otherwise, -presuming that the old way of the English Kings is still controlling the lives of Americans today.

We fought a war of independence to overthrow the old royal dictatorship, including ownership and belonging based on nothing more than a native-birth paradigm.
The Americans switched from having to acknowledge before the revolution that “I am a subject of the King because I was born on his soil.” to “I am no one’s subject and I belong to my country and nation because I was born of countrymen and citizens of the nation. I am a member by birth, -by blood, -having inherited my state and national membership naturally.”

That declaration could and would be accompanied by its sister declaration: “And it does not matter where my mother delivered me from the womb, because I naturally belonged to her and my father, and as a part of them I was and am also a member of the people and society and nation of which they are a part.”

Bottom line? Native-birth is absolutely an irrelevant factor in determining who is a natural born member of the American nation and who is eligible to be President, because the issue of birth location is wholly an arbitrary human-invented imperial factor that has no relationship to natural membership and natural citizenship. A “natural born citizen” is anyone born of citizens. Anywhere.

By that 1898 Supreme Court opinion in favor of native-born Wong Kim Ark, a child of foreigners can be born as an American citizen, but being a Citizen of The United States (even from birth) is not the same as being born as a natural citizen, which must be the status from birth of all U.S. Presidents.

They constitutionally cannot be alien/ immigrant/ foreigner-born. They must be born of Americans and only Americans. Anything else leaves them born as a disqualified legal citizen with alienage, and not as an eligible natural citizen without any alienage.

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–

The Law of Natural Belonging  pdf 10 pages


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”.

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: