Errors and Answers; Explaining the Truth

Robert said… “Soil?   Who among us does not recognize the place of his birth and hold it above other places at least in some small manner; and, usually, to a great degree?”

“People and places are undoubtedly connected in a very fundamental way. One must have some serious blinders on to ignore the relevance and importance of one’s place of birth.

The founders recognized this in the natural born citizen requirement and the residency requirements.
A Natural Born Citizen is one born in the country to two citizen parents. “Parentage” and “Soil”.”

Your observations are all accurate but presented with a giant flaw. They imply something that cannot be taken for granted, and that is the location of one’s home and neighbors and countrymen.

There is no intrinsic connection between birth place and home. If a son is born to a North Korean ambassador in a foreign land, when he returns home and his son is raised as North Korean, what sentiment will be instilled in him regarding his place of birth? NONE!

No attachments exist in a new-born baby. Every view and feeling is absorbed from one’s surroundings as one matures in their home community, which may be competitive with one’s birth place, -like a Spartan born in Athens of a Spartan’s Athenian wife returned to her mother for her first birth.

The importance of birth place stands as irrelevant in the presence of what matters most, and that is your unalienable rights. You have an inviolable right to pass your national membership to your children. There is no god-like law or monster that abolishes that right at the water’s edge. It goes with you everywhere in the world.

With you as a sovereign citizen of the United States your child will automatically inherit your connection to your country because that is a right it is born with. If it were not, then it would be merely property and not a part of you. Whatever is a part of you is a part of your country also since you are a part of it.

You can’t separate citizenship birthright from Natural Rights. Either you have them or the government has them instead.


~    ~    ~

There was a titanic struggle over citizenship between the States and the executive branch of the U.S. government.
The feds rejected dual-citizenship and the clashes of sovereignty that it can produced, while the States embraced it since more citizens (by immigration) meant a larger State population and Census count, giving them greater clout in Congress.

Think of California and its representation in Congress. It’s massive, all because of head-count. Immigrants and their money and skills and labor were good. State citizenship for their native-born children was good, reasonable, and traditional (going back seven centuries) although its automatic nature didn’t allow for excluding abnormal exceptions of birth to mere short-termers who would return to Europe before their American-born child developed societal consciousness and language skill.  But nothing could make them natural Americans except having American parents.

Imagine a nation of 1.5 billion people (let’s say Chinese), and all of them are of the same racial and ethnic background, with no outsiders present at all.
Then one day the first visiting couple arrives, (let’s say from Kenya) and the wife has a baby there.

Would the 1.5 billion natives view that baby as a natural member of their country? Or as an alien born of aliens? As a natural insider? -or as an outsider who just happened to be born while in their country?

Common sense tells you the answer.

~     ~     ~

“if an alien visitor isn’t “subject to the jurisdiction” (of the United States) [as required by the 14th Amendment nationality clause], then why can the police arrest them for crimes committed while they are on US soil?”

Because civil jurisdiction has nothing to do with political jurisdiction which only citizens and immigrants are subject to, -beginning with national defense, and spreading to American policy toward hostile nations which Congress bans Americans from trading with (at least as regards certain technologies at a minimum) or traveling to, and including the obligation to pay federal taxes regardless of one’s residence abroad, and the obligation to purchase health insurance.  None of those things are a part of the jurisdiction that foreign visitors are under.  But military service is the most fundamental obligation of citizenship, and all citizens who are male and young are subject to it.

People like you who have never known that jurisdiction in its starkest power haven’t a clue as to what political jurisdiction involves. In other words, you do not know how the world really works.

No policeman or judge can send you to your death in battle, but the executive branch can. That is the citizenship jurisdiction that was extended to immigrants after the court decreed their children to be subject.

If the child is subject, then so also is the father since subjection flows through him. Ever since they have been subject to conscription whether or not they think it is fair. They’re sent to prison if they refuse.
I learned that from the horse’s mouth (someone’s personal experience).

~     ~     ~

As for Representative James Madison, the view of a common law State rep. is in and of a different world than that of an executive of the State Department who has to deal with sovereign foreign powers and their views of which nation has sovereignty over a person with split parentage.

Madison saw the issue through different eyes as President than as merely a rep of a single State that had no foreign relations.  You are aware of how many views President Obama has reversed 100% (after election) from those as Senator.

“Obama, like all native-born citizens, derives his citizenship through the US Constitution…”

What idiocy. No one’s citizenship is related to the original constitution, but regardless, “citizenship” is not natural born citizenship. I guess you didn’t get that memo.  The 14th Amendment was written to provide untouchable citizenship for freed slaves, and three decades later the Supreme Court extended it to include native-born children of aliens, but native-birth is not what makes a natural citizen.

~    ~    ~    ~

Here’s a dynamite quote that’s highly relevant to the nbc debate:  “In science consensus is irrelevant.”
to which my sister responded:

“That’s because it is no longer science, it’s justifying support for a political narrative which usually involves reducing freedom and taking money. In the case of climate change, BIG money.”

—Michael Crichton, Aliens cause Global Warming [January 17, 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology]

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.  (sound familiar?)  Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.

Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, -which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as “consensus science”.  If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

And that sums up status quo consensus legal opinion on the truth about citizenship and and the meaning of “natural born citizen”.

~    ~    ~

I’ve shown why Obama is not even a citizen by the Wong opinion.  It doesn’t matter if he is considered a legitimate common law citizen by Justice Department policy, he is not a natural born citizen since he is not legally a citizen at all, -by actual law.

Policy is not law, nor is it nature, natural inheritance, bloodline descent, or “birthright”.
If you are not a citizen by blood then you are either not a citizen or are a citizen by legal means not involving conception and birth.

There is no recognized, acknowledged element of anything natural in common law jus soli citizenship. So how dare fools call it “natural”?

Authors like Mario have no comprehension whatsoever as to the meaning of jurisdiction and political authority, but that doesn’t stop them from making soap-box assertions in the sandbox of their inexperienced ideological civilian world. It’s all just ideas in their insulated heads, with no connection to real-world experience or reality, -which you don’t even know exists in relationship to citizenship.

~    ~    ~

Mario Apuzzo wrote: “-the natural born citizen rule is that being a natural born citizen begins for everyone at the objective moment of birth,”

Really? “the rule”??? What rule? Oh, the one you made up. Show me where God said it is so, -or nature. Never mind, just show we where a founding father said it is so. They didn’t because it would be a mistake.

The child inside a mother does not become hers only after it is born. It is conceived being hers and if she and the father are both Americans, it will also naturally belong to America as an American citizen.

Just because its personhood is not recognized until birth doesn’t mean that its inherent nature isn’t recognizable as determined by the nature of the parents, with the birth event changing nothing.

The children of Americans are born being natural born citizens. They do not become such only after delivery, but that is not true of common law children.

If the baby of aliens is strangled in the womb by the umbilical cord and dies just before birth, it is not a dead American citizen.

It has no American nationality attached because it did not meet the first requirement of common law citizenship, -live birth.  But if a child has American parents, it would be delivered as a deceased natural born citizen, -a deceased member of their family and nation, because it is that by nature, -not by legal or common law convention.

The alien parents could not bury their baby with a headstone reading; “Here lies our American child…”.  It would not be a deceased American child in the eyes of American law since citizenship only attaches upon the birth of a live baby.

The common law was not fashioned to give citizenship to the dead but to the living.  And their baby would have no inherent right to be an American.  Rather, its only right would be a legal right thanks to the Supreme Court’s 1898 opinion on the citizenship of the children of alien immigrants.

But a non-living baby born of American parents is not in the foreign category with the deceased baby of foreigners but in the native category.  All children of natives are natives as well, by nature.  That political nature does not attach at birth but is determined at conception by the nationalities of the parents.  It is unchangeable.  It can’t be altered by circumstances like birth inside or outside of national borders.

So it is for the American baby before it is born since its nature is not determined by the relatively brief event of delivery.  Inside the womb or now outside the womb, its political nature is predestined and unalterable.   It is born (or extracted) as a natural born member of the American nation through its blood relationship to American parents.

But one can argue that citizenship only attaches upon personhood being recognized and that only occurs upon birth.  That would be a good point, but it is raising an opinion and not a fact of law since there are 50 States plus the District of Columbia and they each could have their own law based on the opposite opinion.  So is there any fact that could settle the matter as beyond opinion?

There are three possibilities; 1. There is no answer since it is purely a matter of opinion.  2.  If no political entity of the U.S. recognized pre-birth personhood, -then the law would be the deciding fact to settle the issue.  3.  There is a natural principle which settles the issue.

If there exists a natural principle, then what is it?  There is such a principle; -it is the principle of natural membership.  By it all off-spring are the same as their parents, -same genus, same species, and the same breed (usually), and are born as natural members of their family, their clan, their tribe (if of one), their country, and their nation.

But the babies of aliens are of another country and nation and are unnaturally born in a nation that is not their own.  (unnatural sociologically, -as in abnormally, unconventionally)

The point being that one’s political nature is determined at conception if conceived by native parents, but at birth if born of aliens within U.S. borders.

Their political membership in the nation that grants them common law citizenship commences upon birth but the clock of natural membership for those conceived by Americans starts ticking at conception, -or, like a lit fuse, starts burning at conception, and then explodes at birth into full-blown citizenship.

For the alien-born, the clock starts ticking at delivery and there is no fuse for them.  They could derail their child’s acquisition of citizenship by driving across the border or flying out of the country, because its American nationality is not set until live birth.  Kind of like a chemical reaction which requires an agent and a reagent.  American soil is the reagent.  Without it, the reaction of citizenship acquisition does not take place.

“when the objective factors of the place of birth and the citizen birth parents unite in their child to allow their child…”

In natural national membership, there is only one single objective factor: were the mother and father both Americans or not? If one is an alien, then the child is a political hybrid and not a natural citizen of any nation, -with its birth place being irrelevant to that reality. But… it’s also irrelevant even if they both are aliens!

Ask yourself; was Obama’s birth place (wherever it was) affect the degree to which he was (more or less) a natural born citizen? Would he be less of an NBC if not U.S. born?
Ridiculous! He either is or is not. There are no degrees. Same with American parents and birth place. It doesn’t make one more or less of an NBC either because it is irrelevant to inheritance by blood and patrilineal descent.

~    ~    ~

Art wrote: “ONLY TWO U.S. citizen parents is the original intent of the original Founders and Framers…including John Jay who underlined “born” in “natural born Citizen” with the implicit “from birth” presupposition.

You point of reference is incorrect. “Born” was not underlined for the reason of emphasizing the timing or commencement of one’s citizenship (“from”) but the origin of it.

Was its origin by law, by custom, tradition, or was it by inherited political nature passed from parents to children?

Was one’s nationality something they were born as or merely something they were born with, (-with commencement not beginning at one month nor one year nor ten years of age but from day one)?

If you artificially inseminate a zebra with a donkey embryo, it will become a new member of the herd “from” birth, but will never be a natural member “by” birth.

One can be an American “from” birth via the common law rule, but one can only be a natural citizen if one was conceived as an American from American political DNA and thus entered the world by being born as a natural member of the nation.
From the bare-bones logic of natural principles, one is either born being a citizen by nature or one is born “with” citizenship conferred at delivery (legal citizenship as apposed to natural citizenship).

~    ~    ~

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…  Adrien Nash/h2ooflife,

I see that you now have a new mantra, the common law does not define a natural born citizen. I guess my little lecture to you on the American and English common law really kicked you good. I just love watching you keep changing your presentation, taking from this blog, repackaging it, and passing it off as your own.

Well, I hate to tell you but not only are you full of contradictions, but now you are getting more and more incoherent as you try harder and harder to maintain your position. You are just losing it. Why do you not try for once to write something, other than what you have taken from others and passed off as your own, that is not only your personal belief, but rather that has some basis in history, law, reason, and logic?

April 28, 2014

Sooooo, no matter what I write, I cannot get Mario to dispute any of it by addressing it. Guess how many times I’ve made a point that refutes his orthodoxy and had him completely ignore it? Just about every single time, and this one is no different.

He just climbs up on his high soap box and pronounces the upstart to be wrong, and then like a good teacher he…shows the error of fact or logic???

No, instead he just declares errors of fact and logic with no explanations or proof, and brushes all of the truth revealed to him aside because it destroys his dogma.

One can’t have a discussion if one side is unwilling to discuss but instead will only pontificate.

I respond to many things he writes. He responds to nothing that I write unless he first distorts it and then he just knocks down his own self-made strawman. What else can he do unless he wants to respond and prove himself wrong.

The more comprehensive become his lambasts the more one can be sure that he feels surrounded on all sides by truths he cannot acknowledge without crumbling.

Anyway, if any of the geniuses in this little sandbox would truly like to understand something about jurisdiction and citizenship in regard to taxation, here’s a real eye opener related to citizenship renunciation.
All that pertains to citizens does NOT pertain to foreign guests, visitors, -tourists, and ambassadors. You’ll see why their children are not born subject like a citizen’s children are.

~    ~    ~

Slarti asked the unbelievable: ” President Obama cannot be responsible for fraud based on a good faith effort to follow the law as he had learned it. If you were right, you could conceivably get the SCOTUS to rule in your favor, but in doing so you would legitimize President Obama. Would you be satisfied with that outcome?”

Legitimize??? As in legitimize his assumption that he is a native-born citizen by the Griggs error?
That would not be ruling in my favor since I hold that error to be illegitimate and grounded on nothing in the Wong holding which was limited to immigrants, -as you are well aware but must pretend to not be, you fraud.

Obama would not be guilty of fraudulently pretending to be a U.S. citizen if he actually believes he was born in Hawaii (as his mother no doubt told him).

She could never tell him the truth that she figuratively went to the ends of the Earth seeking to get rid of him at delivery by having an adoptive couple take him off of her hands, -ending up in Vancouver, B.C.

He never heard that from her lips, though he may have discovered it somehow, -or not.

But mere citizenship is irrelevant to the presidency. He knew from the first time he read the eligibility requirement that he could not meet it since there was no way he could possibly be considered a natural born citizen with an alien, non-immigrant British-subject Kenyan father.

If his mother had been his father’s Kenyan wife, you would still be claiming that he innocently believed he was a natural born American. What’s the difference? What difference does it make if you have one alien parent or two? (-since you’re ineligible either way).  It makes none in the minds of the self-deceived who cling to the belief that citizenship from birth is not to be dissected into two halves, natural and legal, but embraced as making all alien-born legal citizens eligible to be the President of the United States.

~    ~    ~

Dear Mario, your ignorance continues to astound me. Exhibit 1.
“Clearly, any state naturalization laws would conflict with the federal laws on immigration.”

How do you, as a pseudo-authority, made such a totally unfounded statement?
All immigration (and naturalization) remained by the 9th & 10 Amendments under the sovereignty of the STATES.

You got this right: “Now, a state could declare such person to be state citizens, but those state citizens were not citizens of the United States under any federal law.”

Just as I’ve been repeating over and over. They both had separate and conflicting nationality recognition. The States followed common law for their immigrants’ children, (-not their own.) The feds did not. They followed only citizenship by descent since dual-nationality couldn’t avoid dual-allegiance and a sovereignty conflict.

“…would have thwarted Congress’s work to make all the naturalization laws concerning national citizenship uniform throughout the United States.”

Wake up! No national citizenship law existed until the Civil Rights Act of 1866. All citizenship was via State citizenship.

One was an American by being born of State citizens, not the other way around. National citizenship was irrelevant to everything unless you were leaving the country and needed travel papers.
All States recognized the citizens of all other States as fellow Americans, regardless of the national government and national “citizenship”.

In fact, in reality, national citizenship didn’t exist with the exception of federal jury duty. In fact, to the world, there were no “U.S. citizens”; there were and are only U.S. Nationals. All that governments recognize about foreigners is nationality. They don’t care about citizenship.

If an American Samoan visits another place, anywhere in the world, including the US, they are recognized as a U.S. National. And so are all other Americans also. Citizenship is irrelevant to foreign governments. They don’t care what your civic rights are back in your homeland.

Mario wrote: “he did not understand that citizenship of the U.S. could not have started before July 4, 1776, for there was no separate and independent political nation called the United States before then of which to be a citizen (a member),”

You are missing the real-world, down-to-earth picture of membership reality. Every Freeman in America was a citizen of his city, town, county and colony.

If you were not an immigrant, a slave, an involuntary servant, or an Indian, then you were a citizen of your home colony or State republic.
The President had to be a citizen by other than lawful means, -meaning not by common law nor naturalization. He had to be a citizen by descent only, not native-birth only.

Congressmen only had to be citizens of America. They did not have to be citizens of the federal government, nor the newly organized and approved national union of sovereign republics, -nor the combination of both.
They only had to be a citizen in and of one of the united republics of America, meaning Americans who were citizens, (as they all were unless of the excluded groups).

American? check! Citizen? check! Within the American nation? check!
Then you can serve in Congress to represent your State. You just had to have been born of parents who were citizens in one of the colonies or States.
On July 4th, 1776, the Americans’ nationality changed from British subject to American only.

Their citizenship did not change because they remained unaltered in regard to their relationship to their own republic’s government. They were its citizens before that date and remained so after, although they were not citizens of The United States of America prior.

“Wong replaced birth in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents with birth in the U.S. to parents who, if not U.S. citizens, were at least permanently domiciled and residents in the U.S.”

Do you know what that means, yet? It means that Obama is not an American citizen by U.S. law.  When will you find the courage to state that inescapable fact?  [apparently never]

Unless one learns to stop thinking of citizenship only in terms of the aggregate nation, one will remain in the dark as to the real situation.

 ~    ~    ~

[This court case reveals the truth about unalienable rights with which one is conceived and born, which include not only the right to life & health (clean air, water, and food ) but the right of national membership through those who gave you life.]

The court decision on April 18 was in reference to Sarah Janie Hicks v. State of Alabama. Hicks had been charged in 2009 with violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute, which in part says that a “person commits the crime of chemical endangerment” by “knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia,” a felony
The court decision on April 18 was in reference to Sarah Janie Hicks v. State of Alabama. Hicks had been charged in 2009 with violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute, which in part says that a “person commits the crime of chemical endangerment” by “knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia,” a felony.
The court decision on April 18 was in reference to Sarah Janie Hicks v. State of Alabama. Hicks had been charged in 2009 with violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute, which in part says that a “person commits the crime of chemical endangerment” by “knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia,” a felony.
The court decision on April 18 was in reference to Sarah Janie Hicks v. State of Alabama. Hicks had been charged in 2009 with violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute, which in part says that a “person commits the crime of chemical endangerment” by “knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia,” a felony.

re-quoting Scott v. Sandford (1857)
“[a] State…can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State, -clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character”

While within one’s home State, all government was State government and protection. Only when traveling abroad was the State jurisdiction switched to that of the national government and its protection. Once back on American soil, the federal sovereignty ended and State sovereignty resumed. THAT was the federal system and balance of sovereignty.

“Chief Justice John Marshall stating “[t]hat the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress” He was ignorant. The “power” of naturalization was in the OATH! -nothing else!  Congress had no power other than to make the naturalization rules of the 13 States uniform so they all followed the same requirements.  It had no authority to usurp the authority of the States to manage their own immigration and naturalization situations.  Neither the Congress nor the States could make a foreigner into an American.  All they could do was to officially recognize when a foreigner did that himself.

Men naturalized themselves by their vow before God and man. Nothing in life could compare to it except the power of the vow of matrimony -which was far less dire since it didn’t come with the possibility of execution for treason.

Naturalization was akin to entering a new world, -a new political world.  To prepare for that entry one had to remove all of their foreign clothing and burn them.  They take a germicidal shower with delousing chemical spray, and then have all of their blood removed and replaced with new blood from the American world.  Then one would be a pure, alienage-free new natural American.  The reality of such a transformation was to be the consequence of the solemn oath of renunciation of the monarch one had grown-up under.

The power of the naturalization vow is seen in the power of the words of Muslim men who can divorce a wife by saying “I divorce you.” three times. If he speaks those words, their marriage is no more.  Similarly, when a foreigner speaks the words of renunciation, his “marriage” to his king or government is through and they are divorced, -with his allegiance and vows of fidelity being switched to the United States.  It can easily be asserted that foreigners self-naturalize via their oath, and the government officials are merely there to witness it and make an official record of it.

A foreigner could actually naturalize himself before any government official if it were not for the fact that all oaths must be administered by those who are imbued with the authority to administer them.  They must be government sanctioned.

~     ~    ~

“Finally, defining all the other citizens of the United States,…”

There are no definitions of U.S. citizens. You pretend that what only exists in your imagination is real. It is unAmerican to define and categorized and classify Americans. Only the Census Bureau has that right and responsibility.

Americans are not defined by how their citizenship is acquired anymore than they are defined as citizens by race.
All Americans are EQUAL! THERE ARE NO CLASSES OR DEFINITIONS under any law. Natural born citizens are defined outside of the law. Their definition is from the sociological or natural realm, -not common law.

It is pure ignorance to believe that the Americans were not capable of using English words that carried their English language meanings, including the words: natural… and born… and citizen, -whose meanings were not defined by lawyers or legislators or judges but by the English language.


~Today’s Original Thoughts~

George Washington was Odin.
Thor was a natural born citizen, (a la Teddy Roosevelt).
Loki was not. He was like Barry Obama; an outsider. Not of Asgard blood. Not loyal solely to Asgard’s protection and benefit.

He had an alien agenda, motive, and scheme. He wanted to transform the situation of Asgard, for “for its own good” of course.
He could not be trusted. He was a major security risk. He betrayed his kingdom and his family because he was not fully one of them. He was of another group.

He was lacking in the embrace of the principles of Asgard and obedience to its law. Loki was a traitor to both. -as is Obama. An amazing coincidence?
Do you have an unalienable right to buy food?
Do you have an unalienable right to NOT buy food?

Do you have an unalienable right to buy health insurance?
Do you have an unalienable right to NOT buy health insurance?

~    ~    ~

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
“I guess founder historian and doctor, David Ramsay, did not get your memo before he explained that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship as a “natural right” was reserved only for a child born to citizen parents”.

Mario, when will you finally get the memo of what Ramsay’s words mean? “BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP”! “NATURAL RIGHT”! Your fantasy of citizenship is diametrically opposed to his. If you compare your concept of the NATURAL RIGHT of citizenship to a man, he appears solid and is, but the instant he steps across the borderline he becomes an INVISIBLE MAN! He goes away, vanishes. POOF! GONE!  And all of his unalienable rights as well.

Please explain how an unalienable right knows borders and ends at them? Right to Life? Stops at the border, mister. Property? Same. Liberty? Bye-bye. the American citizenship of your children? Vanished. No young man “on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of [his country]. The country of the fathers is therefore [NOT!] that of the children,…”

Vattle observed that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born IN THE COUNTRY!!!!
No, wait, -something’s wrong. The spirit of Mario took over my mind for a brief second and I misquoted Vattel. Now with my senses restored I can share his actual words: “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be BORN OF A FATHER who is a citizen!!!
Say,… where’d reference to birth location disappear to??? It must be there somewhere, and if it isn’t, we’ll just pretend that it is. No one will ever notice the difference.

Vattel concluded with “for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” -and conversely; if he is born there [a foreign country] of an American, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.  So the foreign-born American child is left without a country?  Absurd.  He is an American by blood.

So… an American child is born in say… Cuba. Cuba is not his country, and in MarioWorld, the U.S. is not his country either because his American parents crossed the borderline and their NATURAL RIGHT to have their child inherit their American membership vanished into invisibility! Where’d it go??? It went nowhere! It only vanished in the nativist’s deluded mind.

There’s another major point in Ramsay’s words that were also overlooked. He wrote of “a natural right” of citizenship, but failed to address a common law right, which is not a natural right but is a legal right.

Children of aliens have no natural right to be deemed Americans but by the long colonial history of common law membership, it was so well established that that was the entrenched colonial and State policy, (and Law, after independence) that it became viewed as being a right, when it was no right at all but was merely permission, allowance, a gift of membership for outsiders’ children.

“in Minor v. Happersett…a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth was not only a citizen like his or her parents but also a native or natural born citizen”

That is 100% true, and Mario should plant his flag there and defend only that ground, -which does not contain any requirement that a natural born citizen be identified by birth place since the wording is “a child” NOT “Only a child” HUGE difference, and one that can’t be defended or explained on the basis of American rights.

But the justices erred in the assumption that all others were aliens. That was only the view from the federal government’s perspective; not from that of the States which remained sovereign over the membership of their own inhabitants.

Those States whose laws granted or recognized the inclusion (as citizens) of the alien-born within their borders did NOT view them as aliens but as fellow citizens by the common law extant for over a century. They weren’t viewed as natural citizens but the distinction was non-existent because (as far as anyone has discovered and shared) no State required its Governor, and Chief in Command to be a natural born citizen.  Naturalized and alien-born citizens could become governors, just as they could become Senators.

So there are two debates; one is over the contested citizenship of the alien-born and the other is over whether of not their debatable citizenship was natural or merely legal; -by right of descent, inheritance, blood relationship or by nothing other than the invented common law rule handed down in the Calvin case as a new form of nationality identification.

Can the President be a “jus soli” citizen born of aliens or must he be only a natural “jus sanguinis” citizen born of citizens? It’s blood versus borders. Which criterion came first, came naturally, organically, and which was invented, artificial, imposed and then institutionalized across the British Empire?  Natural Membership or man-made membership?


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: