400 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas pt. 3
April 6, 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
We’ve seen where the invented, amalgamated phrase “natural-born subject” must have come from, -a necessity to include together all subjects whether they were subjects by nature (via birth to subject fathers) or subjects by being born within the sovereign’s realm although not of his nation. But was that phrase the origin of the American phrase “natural born citizen”?
Those who defend the idea that by the devolution of the English term (as Europeans were included under it) the alien-born of foreigners in America can therefore be labeled as that which they are not; namely natural citizens of the United States.
But since the Constitution’s writers included the word “born” instead of just “natural citizen” they feel that that gives them a justifiable basis to argue that the American term was just an adaptation of the British term. But to jump that logic gap requires employing three springboards;
1. the idea that Americans had no difference in their thinking than the British; 2. the word “citizen” is from the same universe as the word “subject”, and; 3. that the whole phrase is not a literal idea based on the individual words but is a “legal term of artifice” which means something other than what the words literally, individually mean.
In their own minds, they springboard over their logic gap, albeit they fall flat on their faces in the light of several statements in U.S. laws, histories, and high court opinions. But they simply turn a blind eye to them and pretend they do not exist. And they do that in order to defend and protect their champion, Barack Obama and the legitimacy of his presidential eligibility.
But any reasonable man can easily understand that if the third springboard is so highly false that it has no spring, then Obama cannot be considered to be a legitimate President. So, is “a natural born citizen” some sort of legal fiction of language, -a term of legal artifice? The answer is provided in part by the other assumptions which are road-blocks to that view.
No one who is of an American mind-set, and not a subservient, loyalist, government enthroning, natural rights ignoring mind-set, knows that the thinking of the Americans in the 1770s was radically altered as it became clear to them that they were either to be slaves of the English king and his aristocratic tyrannical Parliament (which had no place in any of their colonial Charters with the King), or they would be free men living on their feet and not on their knees.
Since they no longer thought the way the British thought, it can’t rationally be asserted that when they used English language words they necessarily meant exactly the same thing as they did when contained within an old British term of art (“natural-born subject”) used to describe a people that had no elected President & Commander of the national Army.
That can be shown in various ways, including by simply pointing out that the word “subject” and the word “citizen” are not from the same universe. What each implies is radically different from what the other entails.
CITIZENS were responsible for their own governance, their own national survival, their own defense, justice, and the protection of their own natural liberties. With subjects…? -not so much.
That being true, it can’t reflexively be contented that any words attached to “Citizen” had to carry the very same connotation as they did under the royal system of human ownership with its designated “term of art” label. There is no logical basis on which to make such an assumption, and no one can offer one.
That leaves the very high likelihood that they carried a different connotation in a very different context, -that of a people who had to entrust the command of their new nation’s military power to one single elected or appointed individual.
It might have been decided that such a position might be filled with an appointment for life, -like federal judges who would be under no man’s influence. The Commander in Chief could have been viewed as one who needed to be separated from national and international politics which might seek to corrupt his loyalties, and not be someone potentially switched in and out with every election cycle. Such a view can be imagined as being present through these words:
“At the start of Washington’s administration, John Adams became deeply involved in a month-long Senate controversy over the official title of the President. Adams favored grandiose titles such as “His Majesty the President” or “His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of Their Liberties.””
So whoever he might be, it was vitally important that he be 100% reliably loyal solely to the United States, -having no direct attachments to any foreign power or nation.
Adams (who followed Washington as President, -and received a third of the votes when he ran against him in the first and second presidential races) was such a man, -with ancestors who were all Americans all the way back to the Puritans.
His loyalty to his country was unquestionable since he had roots nowhere else. Such a citizen could be trusted to never betray his country in favor of benefiting a foreign nation or king.
The filling of the position of Command in Chief was therefore potentially critical to the success of the new nation and its perpetual survival. What fool would pretend that such an American situation, -such a new and previously non-existent context, was ever faced by the loyal subjects of His Royal Majesty in Britain?
And yet they pretend that that reality didn’t exist and everything was just equivalent across the board. -That the word “subject” was equivalent to CITIZEN. That America was equivalent to a monarchical dictatorship. That the U.S. Government would be equivalent to the power and authority of a hereditary god among men whose authority was supposedly bestowed by God himself. Yes, it’s hard to see any difference.
So let’s look to an analogous phrase in order to understand the nature and meaning of the words “natural born CITIZEN”. Let’s employ another word and see how it relates and illuminates. Let’s employ the word “White”.
In the founder’s era, as always, men felt biased in favor of their own kind, including their own ethnic and racial group, and as a result,they would not accept being ruled over by someone of a different nature. That fact was not made an element of the Constitution, which does not discriminate, but was made an element of the naturalization act passed by the first Congress.
It stated that the qualification for naturalization was that one be a free white man of good character.
That excluded, by law, those who also were excluded socially and politically from any chance of being a candidate for the new office of President, namely; free black men who were either immigrants from Africa or free educated Black natives.
So potentially, the eligibility to be President could have been tied to race just as was eligibility for citizenship. After all, can you imagine the people of young America, aside from the slaves, putting themselves under the leadership of a freed slave or son of an African immigrant? That was not even thinkable, but that fact didn’t result in an open prohibition in the Constitution. But let’s postulate our own.
“No person except a white born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.” Well, we know what citizen means, -and what a “born citizen” means (one born as a citizen by natural inheritance of the parents’ nationality, –or one born having citizenship by the grace of law even though born of foreigners) but what does “white” specifically mean and connect to?
Does it connect to “born” or to “citizen”? Would “wise” as in “wise old man” connect to “man” or to “old”? “Wise man” or “wise old”?
Clearly, “white” does not connect to “born” although it would not be as illogical as it would be with “wise old”. It connects to “citizen” as in “white citizen”, -as apposed to “Negro citizen” (the only other race prevalent in America).
[One or more egalitarian individual States may have allowed naturalization for free black men, but after the first naturalization act in 1790, that allowance ended (unless a State choose to ignore the new national rule for naturalization which only applied to the creation of new “citizens of The United States”, -as apposed to intra-State citizenship only).]
But with “white” one might argue that Mulattoes could be labeled white since they are part white
and have that character in common with pure whites. That is directly comparable to saying that foreigner-born citizens have native-birth in common with natural citizens, so therefore in a sense they are also natural citizens.
That is a form of false sophistical linguistic distortion and conceptual perversion since that which makes one a natural citizen is citizen parents, -not birth location.
That perversion is possible and accepted because of the error of connecting the adjectives to each other instead of to the noun that they modify.
Just as “wise” and “old” do not modify each other as in “wise old” but modify the noun “man”, so also, but not as clearly, do the words “natural” and “white” modify the word “citizen”.
But in our minds we think we see a connection which, in fact, is not intended. We imagine that “natural born” and “white born” might be actual terms instead of just adjectives which describe “citizen”. But they are not actual terms because they would be stupidly redundant in nature.
No one would ever say that so-and-so is “a white born man” because it’s understood that race is something not determined by birth but by “blood”, -by genes. Likewise, all natural citizens are citizens via citizen parents and not the event of birth.
One could say “citizen born” and “a born citizen” and “natural citizen” without redundancy, but adding “natural” along with “born” does not give cause to assume that “natural” is added to modify “born” instead of the noun they both share, as in “natural citizen” plus “born citizen”. A combination of two different focuses. One of which is citizenship by law (based on birth location), and the other being citizenship by nature (based on blood connection).
Some who are born as citizens are not citizens by nature but instead by the allowance of the laws of the natural citizens who deigned to allow outsiders to join their national family.
So we see then, in reality, those three springboards have no spring.
1. Americans did not think like the British.
2. The history of the distorted term attached to all subjects of his majesty did not apply in the liberated countries of America, -and
3. the words “natural born citizen” did not constitute a term of legal artifice as they did in Britain and the colonies before the revolution since the word “CITIZEN” was from an entirely different philosophical universe than the word “subject”.
Additionally, an individual word within a term of art cannot be singled out for emphasis since the term has a unitary meaning which is taken as a whole and not as the sum of its parts.
But the first man in America to single out one word demonstrated for all time that the employment of the words “natural” and “born” in the American context did not constitute the fashioning of a new American term of art when combined with the newly appropriated word “citizen”.
That man underlined the word “born” when he wrote to General Washington (president of the constitutional convention) suggesting that the power of the Command in Chief should not be given to nor devolve on one who was not a “natural born citizen”.
He underlined that word, -and not “natural born” nor “natural” because of America’s legal fiction that all men who took the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation became immediately new natural citizens of the United States, -just like a Christian convert rises as in symbolic resurrection from the water of baptism (representing death & burial of the old sinful human nature) as a new “reborn” being having the spirit of Christ within.
A new citizen of America, of one’s State of residence and homestead, was not christened as “a new naturalized citizen” (there was no such citizen class) but as a new fellow natural citizen brother of the American people and their shared nation.
He was then co-responsible for its governance, and survival, and was no longer a foreigner beholden to and obedient to a foreign dictator. He was at last a free man in a free country. No monarchy over his head. No royal power shielding the political sun of freedom. He was a new natural American, -just like all of his fellow Americans in every single way, -almost.
There was just one tiny insignificant real-world difference between him and his new American brethren, -and that was that he could not be allowed to command all of the military might of the nation because America didn’t have any mind readers who could tell what was or was not hidden in the hearts of those born and raised foreign. And so total trust regarding total power could not be invested in him, -but could be invested in his American raised children.
About that fact no one disagrees. The disagreement is about a closely related fact, and that is regarding the children of the foreign man who chose to not become an American (or who had not given legal notice that he intended to become naturalized just as soon as the law permitted him to before fathering children in America).
Those foreigner-born children had foreign fathers who presumably retained allegiance to their foreign monarch. How in the world could they be presumed to be 100% American and possessed of undying devotion to America’s principles, -to her Constitution and laws, her people, her freedoms and her survival?
Well, they couldn’t, and that was why the word “born” was underlined by the man who wrote that letter; he being John Jay, compatriot of Thomas Jefferson, past president of the Continental Congress and future Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He and his fellow patriot founder, Alexander Hamilton, wrote of the fear of corrupt foreign influence gaining ascendance in America via assuming the role of chief magistracy of the nation, -which turned out to be the office of President & Commander in Chief.
Hamilton feared that a planted agent of a foreign power might rise to occupy such a position since there would be no greater prize for them on earth than that, at least one requiring no resort to war.
Alexander Hamilton’s writing in Federalist No. 68:
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”
Since that would be an impossibility for a foreigner to achieve under the loosest of allowances of eligibility, it was necessary to also block the avenue of achieving it through one’s son who happened to be born within the United States.
And that was why he underlined the word that had never (in its extremely rare appearances) been underlined as part of a phrase including the words “natural” and “citizen”.
The power of the nation had to not be given to any so-called “natural citizen” but only one literally born as a natural citizen, -and not merely made into “a new natural citizen” by the American fiction of citizenship transformation known as natural-ization.
The Constitutional Convention accepted his suggestion and adopted it. But ever since, no one has been able to explain why he underlined the word born if they do not understand what has just here been explained. Do you now understand?
If so, you are a tiny minority of an even smaller minority because Americans live in an ocean of citizenship ignorance, and I don’t see any real way for that to change without some sort of charismatic, dynamic popular patriot who is knowledgeable, willing, and wanting to teach them, and they being eager to learn.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for him to appear and clear up the near universal ignorance and misconception that has been the American norm and status quo almost from the beginning.
The government is never going to correct its century old institutionalized error which declares every baby born on U.S. soil to every alien (except ambassadors) to automatically be deemed a United States CITIZEN because of the Calvin case and its far-reaching impact.
Just as buildings are built one block on top of another on top of foundation stones, so concepts, ideologies, philosophies and religions also are built on foundational assumptions and beliefs.
If they are not factual, then the entire structure built on them is grounded on the sand of error or falsehood, but the structure becomes so immense, accepted, customary and traditional that even questioning it can get you killed in some cases.
So knowing the truth does not translate into being able to replace the embraced error because it is rooted in the minds of the population and government institutions. Just try changing an institution in America.
Not only can’t our corrupt government abolish departments and agencies that are obsolete, but it cannot even repeal laws written for the depression of the 1930s and no longer applicable in today’s world in any legitimate or constitutional manner.
I’m just glad to no longer be as young as I’d like to be because the up side of it is that I don’t have a whole lot of emotional involvement in a distant future that won’t be one that folks of my generation and earlier would find acceptable. Plus, it makes a significant difference to not have any progeny that will be victimized by that future.
by Adrien Nash April 2014
[in PDF format, 18 pages, two-column: 400 Years of Bastardized Ideas about Citizenship
Thomas Paine on Kings & Presidents; from The Rights of Man, Chapter 4 —
Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791