The Actual Facts & Truth about U.S. Citizenship
April 5, 2014 1 Comment
I continue to say this is a Spiritual battle. The USofA rests on the foundation of Natural Law. That is, God has given us certain unalienable rights. The government, and the Constitution give us NOTHING. Our rights come from God, thus the crucial expression (now a misunderstood cliche) “God given rights.”
Rather than “give citizens rights”, the Constitution does the opposite. It recognizes we already have these rights (from God), and it PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING THEM AWAY FROM US.
Now if you reject Natural Law, as the Marxists/Communists/Socialist do, then man has NO RIGHTS except what the Government benevolently and conditionally extends to him. Without Natural Law as your foundation, your are A SLAVE TO THE STATE.
How many of you were taught these basic, but revolutionary concepts in our government-run schools? I was not, I learned it through my Church.
The founding fathers had and expression – “You are either governed by God, or ruled by tyrants.”
So, just remember that as the government moves more and more every day to remove all references of God from our institutions and Constitution, they are actually removing Natural Law as the basis of governing. In turn, they are removing your God-given rights (against the restrictions of the Constitution) and instead making you a slave of the State.
This is a Spiritual battle – will you (and your family, and our nation) be governed by God or ruled by a tyrants?
~ ~ ~
Both Obots & nativist Birthers face multiple conundrums of conflicting facts.
FACT 1. By the 1866 Civil Rights Act, those born subject to a foreign power are not citizens.
FACT 2. U.S. born children of foreign ambassadors and foreign guests are subject to their father’s foreign government, -just as he is.
FACT 3. Those subject to a foreign government are NOT subject to the U.S. government.
FACT 4. The U.S. military draft laws of the Civil War exempted those foreigners subject to a foreign power, whether they were immigrants or their unnaturalized native-born sons.
FACT 5. The U.S. Government did not recognize dual-citizenship nor dual allegiance. It was akin to bigamy. One could not be responsible for the defense of two different nations. That is unnatural and was unacceptable.
FACT 6. American families were unitarian units with a single nationality; that of the father.
FACT 7. Wherever an American father’s children were born, their nationality was inherited from him and was none other than the family nationality.
FACT 8. No U.S. Ambassador, with children born in multiple countries, had a family of divided nationalities because they all had his nationality.
FACT 9. No American, with children born in other countries, had a family of divided nationalities because they were all his nationality from the perspective of the U.S. Government. See Fact 5.
FACT 10. The nationality laws of foreign nations could not confer a second allegiance or recognized nationality to one born of an American father. An American by blood was first and last an American, -unless his father never lived in the United States and was not born there either.
FACT 11. Every other son of every American father was born with a birthright that held open every office in America to him.
FACT 12. The unalienable right by the American blood of every American son was the qualification to one day be eligible to serve as President.
Taken as a whole, these facts can’t be refuted nor disputed. They pop every imaginary eligibility balloon.
” Whether or not the law has or will continue to treat corporations as “persons” in particular legal contexts, there is clearly an established legal difference between the rights of “natural persons,” and those of “artificial persons.””
“A human being is a natural person, and thus possesses the full scope of inalienable rights as articulated in the Declaration of Independence and detailed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
“A corporation is an abstract and artificial construct, a mere “creature of the law.”
“[with only] artificial personhood”.
Natural persons, and artificial persons, are twin-like to Natural citizens and artificial citizens via law, -but with both being human.
But only one is natural. The other is a construct of the law. No citizen whose American nationality is the product of law is eligible to be President.
They may be citizens artificially but not naturally.
The law cannot naturally transmit anything. It cannot make anything. All it can do is acknowledge what is and recognize what has become.
A foreigner has become am American via the Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. Nothing can reverse that except having lied.
The government does no make it so. The person makes it so by his oath. The power is in the pledging and binding of the oath, not the law. Bound by oath = bound by honor.
Just like marriage vows. If you speak them then you are married, with or without someone pronouncing it to be so.
The vows marry two souls, and the citizenship vow marries a foreigner to America.
There is no provision of government power to make it so other than administering the oath. That is the power behind naturalization.
It makes new “natural citizens”, just as does the 14th Amendment, but that natural citizenship is in fact artificial fiction-of-law citizenship, and not citizenship by birth.
Slarti burped: “There is nothing in the writings of the Founders that suggests that a native birth requirement would fail to meet the standard of security that the Founders sought.”
Question: What founders’ writings exist discussing a “standard of security”?
What security are they known to have sought?
If there’s no writings, what presumption can one make without error on the dangerous side?
As I point out in part 3 of “400 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas” (pt. 1 now online) your presumption was very costly when made by Indira Gandhi. Her Prime Minister Protection Service native-born guard failed to provide the “security” you are so quick to offer to the US President.
He was not a natural born member of her ethnic group and so he chose to “settled” some ethnic scores with her using his machine gun. So much for her egalitarianism of inclusiveness. RIP
THAT is just what you are advocating for America. But the Secret Service isn’t buying it. Nor is the nuclear weapons command authority. Nor did the British entrust their crucial military command posts and secret intelligence positions to native-born subjects who were labeled as natural born subjects, but weren’t.
No one was given those posts who was not born of an Englishman.
And no one is allowed to guard the President or control nuclear weapons who is not a natural born citizen, i.e., born of and raised by American parents.
Those who write the rules for security clearances know the difference between the native-born and the natural citizens of America.
And they enforce the rules by rejecting those with alienage. They can’t let the President end up like Indira Gandhi, -as you would be willing to risk.
The Brain-Dead stance of the obamunists:
“Any person, -including every son born within US borders of any alien or any background, -or a natural born citizen… shall be eligible…
How’s that for security folks! Wouldn’t you just love and feel secure about a Sky Marshall with such a stringent background?
Classified / Security Clearance Guidelines:
Guideline B: Foreign Influence
Having close ties with individuals who are not citizens of the United States could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information.
Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interests in other countries could also create vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
An immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, resident of, or present in, a foreign country;
Sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of their citizenship status, if the potential for adverse foreign influence exists;
Relatives, cohabitants, or associates who are connected with any foreign government;
Failing to report, where required, associations with foreign nationals;
Obama’s background SCREAMS: SECURITY RISK!!!
The high court in the Wong case produced a very limited expansion of the original meaning of the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause.
They expanded it to count as subject to U.S. sovereignty children who had previously been excluded by the national government.
They ended the division between jus soli permitting States and the federal policy.
But they did so in a strictly limited manner applying only to children of domiciled members of American society; immigrants of Chinese descent.
They knew that the Attorney General’s job was to interpret their opinion for application by the executive branch, and that he would rightfully extrapolate it to include children of other races.
Why would they assume that? Because it was a basic American principle that all who were fully CITIZENS (adult men only) ARE EQUAL.
The 14th Amendment made discrimination unconstitutional, so the policy regarding male citizens was codified as law.
There was no allowance by those who abolished nobility and aristocracy for unequal classes of citizens to exist, like a White Citizens class, and a Black Citizens class.
There was also no Natural-ized Citizens class. There was only one class; and that was natural citizens.
Via the process and oath of natural-ization, foreigners joined the only class of equal citizens recognized by American principles; natural citizens.
Also added by the Wong opinion were those thenceforth deemed to be State and national citizens although alien-born; namely the native-born children of immigrants.
They did not become natural citizens until they were born on U.S. soil.
Before then they were alien. Then at birth they became citizens by law.
If someone was charged with manslaughter for killing an immigrant woman’s unborn child, he could not be viewed nor charged for killing an American child because U.S. citizenship did not attach until birth.
A child of immigrants was not conceived as an American but as an alien.
U.S. citizenship was not imputed until that alien child emerged into the American world on American soil.
Only then did citizenship attach by operation of federal court opinion and an Attorney General interpretation of their opinion.
Both followed ancient custom and not eternal principle.
By eternal principle, off-spring can be nothing other that what the parents are that produce them. That is the immutable law of nature; aka Natural Law.
Assigning nationality based on birth location was man’s law that emerged from the Calvin case, -not from Nature’s God. It was incapable of producing an actual natural citizen.
U.S. corporations have been deemed by the Supreme Court to be “legal persons” as well as U.S. citizens. Are they natural citizens or “artificial citizens” as so labeled?
Were they born as members of the natural citizen class or merely made as members of the artificial legal-fiction-citizens class?
Are not man-made artificially-produced citizens merely deemed to be fellow “natural citizens” by legal fiction?
Just as artificial persons known as corporations are “artificial citizens”, so are those described by the federal government as “foreign stock”, -regardless of being real persons,
Combined, they constitute the demographic class of un-natural, law-made “Americans”, none of whom had American parents.
No such citizen fits the description that comes from outside of the realm of law, -that comes from the real world of sociological distinction, namely; natural born citizen.
As such, no man-made, jus soli, 14th Amendment, Supreme Court, artificial, legal fiction citizen is eligible to be President of these United States because they are not “natural” born citizens (-even if born in the Lincoln bedroom).
A fellow patriot wrote: “John Jay was conveying to Washington the highest form of allegiance that a person could have to his nation. This allegiance was natural allegiance.”
That is not correct. The focus on allegiance blinds one to the real nature of human relationships. It is not based on what allegiance is, -which is loyalty & obedience. It is based on human bonds.
Parents and children have a bond of blood that binds them together. That bond extends to the larger groups of which they are a part, from clan to nation.
John Jay’s concern was that one born with foreign bonds of attachment and devotion could not be trusted with the American military power.
It was not a matter of whether or not one had a higher or lower allegiance to his nation, but had a singular bond to his American family, -both immediate and national.
Someone with no bonds to any people or sovereign or nation what was not American is naturally going to have zero allegiance toward such foreign things.
So don’t look to measuring allegiance. Look to measuring the purity of one’s bonds. Are they purely American or are they mixed, diluted, bifurcated, dual, hybrid?
As for “natural allegiance”; the North Koreans would not feel any such thing if it were not for a lifetime of fear and indoctrination. Otherwise they would have zero allegiance to their own government and would all be actual traitors in its eyes (to the extent they could manage without being shot).
But they do have a bond to their own people and country via their blood connection. That bond is not determined by where they were born but to whom they were born.
Borders alone are not relevant to the formation of natural bonds, but familial and group connections are, and they are primal.
A mother grizzly doesn’t care where her cub was born, and neither does the cub.