400 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas Pt.2
April 5, 2014 Leave a comment
~or how the Calvin case dooms our future~
[in PDF format, 18 pages, two-column: 400 Years of Bastardized Ideas about Citizenship
What everyone gets wrong because of distorted thinking due to the Calvin case (and the Wong Kim Art case in the U.S. in 1898) is the concept of what the basis or source of national membership is for those who were not born of outsiders.
Those two powerfully influential cases put the spotlight full power on the newly emphasized factor of native-birth being a determinate of membership, -apart from parentage and inheritance of membership.
What happened was that the idea formed that both groups, -the 97% born of citizens, (-nearly all of whom were born of natives) and the foreigner-fathered 3% or so (who owed their national membership to the same single factor of native-birth), were all U.S. citizens because of that factor alone.
Since almost all of the citizenry of the nation was born in the same place; (within the borders of American States) eventually it occurred to no one that the origin of the membership of children of the two different kinds of inhabitants (1. native-&-naturalized citizens, and 2. immigrants) was different.
All they were cognizant of was the fact the native citizens as well as the native-born children of immigrants were both native-born and had the same rights and duties making them essentially identical in nature (just like subjects in Britain regardless of why they were subjects).
But appearances only count to a certain degree and no more. One group was born of Americans while the other was born of outsiders who had joined themselves to the Americans and their country. And what difference did that difference make? None. In no colony did it make a difference since they all had the same British sovereign.
But everything changed when they overthrew his rule over them, -along with the source of their connection to him, -which was where they happened to have been born. Thereafter their membership was based not on that overthrown doctrine of national common connection but on solely the only factor left which was the natural factor of who they were born to; Americans? -or foreigners?; patriots or loyalist?; oath takers or oath refusers?
That was the new reality, -but the old reality still remained in effect in the newly independent States, and as a part of the system of common law which was the basis of colonial law.
From then on, that facet of the common law was abandoned by the national leadership but not abandoned by the States’ leadership because they chose to continue with tradition, -providing incentive for immigration by bestowing their State membership on the immigrants’ children born within the State.
It’s highly likely that most (or all) of the States continued with the dual system which allowed citizenship for the small fraction of children born of their non-citizen immigrants. But the new central government did not recognize American nationality being based on one’s birth place. It was all about which government the father of a child was subject to; foreign? -or American? If foreign, then his children were foreign also, (just like him) -not natural born Americans.
You’ve heard the expression; “the tail wags the dog”. Well that is what has happened with the view of citizenship in America. The tiny fraction of children born to aliens, -children granted citizenship merely because of where they were born, is the tail (a fraction of the citizenry) that wags the dog, -replacing the proper view of citizenship regarding the other 97% who are native-born and citizens by inheritance instead.
It’s easy and natural to make that assumption, after all “everyone” born in America is an American, it must be because they were born in America instead of because they were born of AMERICANS.
That’s just like it was in Great Britain (with the Kingdoms united ) when it seemed that everyone was a member of the nation because they were born in the nation and that put them under the subjection to the king, but that view was only cognizant of the royal policy involving native-born children of foreigners, and was oblivious to one’s own natural right derived from the natural principle of natural membership (which was the true natural origin of their national membership).
Once ignorance won out and the tail began to wag the dog (as the view became over-simplified into seeing native-birth alone as being the sole factor in determining one’s nationality) that dual system became the dominant view in the colonies because it was imbedded as a concept in common law, -with natural law ignored.
The tail became a whale and the dog disappeared. It was endemic as the view taught by law schools and law books because there was no body of books of newly and legally-recognized American Natural Law principles, for legal instruction since most Law schools relied on books of Law that were British legal system books of Law and legal exposition, -not purely American.
Thus American principles were invisible to those who failed to immerse themselves in the writings of those who illuminated the subject of The Natural Rights of Man, as did the founders who relied on them for their vision and inspiration; -both desperately needed for a treasonous rebellion and revolution against the entire British government, its attitude, its philosophy, its authority and its military.
Because of the long history and ingrained influence of the idea of nationality being tied to the borders within which one was born, the distortion of the Calvin case devolved into the delusion that grips America across the board today.
That delusion dictates that the blind and stupid policy of the executive branch must continue for another blind and stupid century just as it has done for the last, -ever since the limited Supreme Court opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case was taken, expanded, and bastardized by the Attorney General at the time.
On his own, he made it national policy that not only were the native-born & raised children of domiciled permanent-resident immigrants deemed to be Americas, but anybody and everybody born within U.S. borders is an American, -with only children of foreign ambassadors being an exception to that universal rule.
That policy is not based on the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause, nor on the court’s opinion as to what it means. It was based solely on the unstated presumption that all children who were born in America to foreigners were born of immigrants who would live in America and raise their children in America, -but that proved to not be true.
There were exceptions that were the opposite, yet there was no sane way to deal with their American citizenship when they were living and growing up abroad as a foreign member of a foreign nation. That was not covered by the common law, nor State law, nor constitutional law, nor congressional law, nor amendment law.
It was off the reservation and out in the twilight zone of nationality policy. But not a damn thing was done about it except to legitimize it. They just put lipstick on that pig since they assumed that it was actually a legitimate child of the federal government, but it was in fact illegitimate.
The consequence is that it is essentially unassailable legally, and even worse, politically and sociologically because of the multiple millions of Latin and Asian Americans who have flooded into America in the last several decades, -legally, (but also, illegally) as the Progressives in Congress decreaseded the ratios of allowed immigrants from European nations and increased the allowances for those from third-world, non-“white”, darker-skin, non-democratic nations (dictatorships).
Their increasing presence in the voting booth tips the scale in favor not of responsible government but of the side that will best guarantee the continuation of free stuff. When or if they become the majority in the swing states that decide the presidency, then the future will be set and the Detroitification of much of America will be inevitable. All courtesy of the fall-out of the Calvin case.
After one becomes legal, one can petition for all of one’s immediate foreign family to migrate into the United States. The whole block of Latin American “U.S. persons” are people from countries that have un-American views of government and self-reliance.
Their governments and societies were not built on American principles of unalienable Natural Rights and sovereignty being invested in the People and not the leadership.
Hence their preference is for the security provided by the party of Big Government, big spending, big social service programs and hand-outs, and paternalistic government power over the citizenry. Their preference is to vote for Democrats because they have become the party of all of that and its free stuff.
They have no concerns whatsoever about constitutionally guaranteed natural rights and freedoms because they got along just fine without them in the land they chose to abandon. They are not concerned about the right of free speech since they never exercised such a right in a public role in their society, -nor a right to bear arms, -which their homelands do not allow.
Although they might balk at restrictions on religious liberty if they are seriously religious, -which is not generally the case about any group of people, they would not have a conscious thought about the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights because their conscious thoughts do not wander to esoteric ruminations about natural rights since they are mostly poorly educated, -kind of like the kind of students that America’s government schools are turning out and passing on year after year to higher grades when they can’t even pass the requirements of the grade they were in the year before, or the year before that.
America has become the land where from elementary school to college an actual F (Fail) is now a D, and a D is now a C. “Grade creep”. Mediocrity and incompetence have become the nation’s union educators’ norm. People who can not even fill out a job application are allowed the high privilege and duty of voting for candidates to run our government.
They can’t even adequately govern their own lives but are given the chance to vote on who should govern all of our lives when their only stake in the outcome is a question of how much more or less from the government they will receive as a result.
No travesty of civil life could be more absurd. It’s like giving prison inmates the right to vote on how they want the prison run; or gluttons, how much food they should be allowed, -or drug addicts how much crack they… . Not a good idea.
So the impact of the Calvin case and its alteration to the concept of British nationality still haunts us to this day, and may doom our future as the demographics shift toward the influence of self-serving immigrant cultures which will in ever-increasing large majority numbers vote for those who have bankrupted our future and theirs, and continue to do so at an accelerated pace, like ship pilots who have no concern that they are scrapping their ship against a dangerous and deadly shoal.
But since in their infantile minds, the future never comes, -summer never ends, and the gravy train goes on forever, they plow on forward with their foot pressed hard against the accelerator pedal.
Anyone with a brain can deduce that the result will be catastrophic eventually as they annually add new mountains of debt to a mother mountain of debt that’s so vast and high and wide and deep that it cannot even be imagined by any mind that ever lived. But I digress.
From natural order and history we rediscover that the basis, the source and origin of national membership in America is via two very different means. There is no confusion about that in regard to those who become naturalized citizens as apposed to those born as citizens.
But confusion exists because it is also true regarding those who were born as citizens. They seem like one group of people but in fact they comprise two separate groups, and all they have in common at birth is the matter of the location where they entered the world.
One group (the 97%) is comprised of the citizen-born natives of the nation whose parents are Americans, while the other is the alien-born whose parents are foreigners. Each group has, in reality, a different source for their American citizenship.
The native group simply inherits their national membership. The foreigner-born group acquires theirs via the Supreme Court opinion that construed the meaning of the 14th Amendment nationality clause, while in Great Britain, after the Calvin case, it was via the common law established by the court decision in that case.
In both cases it was a matter of gaining membership via legal recognition of birth location, and not via natural blood relationship.
With the Scotsmen who became subjects of the English Crown, their numbers also were minuscule (initially) because the court’s decision only applied to those born after the two thrones came to be held by the same person. But with time those numbers grew considerable since every child born in Scotland from then on was born subject not only to the King of Scotland but also the King of England, who just happened to be the same person. *
But they spoke the same King’s English, albeit with very different accents, and were of the same isle and combined Anglo-Saxon ethnic background.
That couldn’t be said of the others who benefited from that decision in the future; those from France and Prussia, and Holland and Poland and such who migrated to Britain with their foreign languages and cultures and lack of established charters and customs of civil rights. They were wholly alien peoples, -although the Dutch and French people were pretty much on the same page as the English.
A similar dissonance resulted in America with the arrival of peoples without English language ability and very un-evolved ideas of what the role of government is in one’s life, and what one’s own natural rights are.
All of this is easily understandable and non-controversial, but a problem arises when one attempts to understand how it all relates to the issue of presidential eligibility. That issue is all wrapped up in the meaning of the words used in the Constitution to describe what sort of citizen the President must be, with it stating: “No person except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of the President;”.
~ ~ ~ ~
* What was background of the title: “The United States”? It was not an original title entirely since the word “united” had been employed by the British in the beginning of the 1700’s. “On 1 May 1707, the united kingdom of Great Britain came into being, the result of Acts of Union being passed by the Parliaments of England and Scotland to ratify the 1706 Treaty of Union and so unite the two kingdoms.” Here’s the several possible ways of labeling the new joint kingdom: 1.) the united kingdoms of Great Britain, plural; 2.) the United Kingdoms of G.B. -also plural; 3.) The united Kingdom of G.B.; singular; and 4.) THE UNITED KINGDOM of GREAT BRITAIN.
Well!, the Americans wanted no less of an impressive title for their proud new country, so they had to pick how to label it in print; 1. The united STATES of AMERICA 2. The United States of America 3. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4. The united STATES 5. The United States. They chose the last one and always printed it that way because it gave an appropriately modest but nicely weighty sense of national sovereignty, -a sense in which our people felt somewhat inferior in compared to the empires of Great Britain and France and Spain. As the new little upstart on the block, our national pride required a prestigious name that carried the combined weight of the entire nation even when actually referring to the individual states and not the entire nation.
Thus instead of writers and printers using a small-case “U” for “united” (as in The united STATES of AMERICA, or the united States), what was almost always written in reference to only “the several States”, illogically and improperly employed a capitalized “U”, thereby forever confusing everyone into thinking that what was written was in reference to the aggregate nation instead of the individual States of the union. The truth is often seen in the reference to “these” and “their” rights (plural) rather than “its” (singular) .
If you want to understand the Constitution and the laws of the first century, you need to bear that fact in mind. The statists had not yet won and usurped most power to the federal government away from the mostly independent States.