The Truth About British Nationality from Ancient Text

re-edited at 7:25 PM, May 2.

~search result for “who are aliens common law statute “natural born”–1Csi42wXkxIDIBA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=who%20are%20aliens%20common%20law%20statute%20%22natural%20born%22&f=false

Here is the transcription of the Google-scanned ancient text the link leads to; it is a direct source for the truth about nationality that I’ve discovered and shared in a hundred different expositions:

A New Abridgement of the Law  ~by a gentleman of the Middle Temple, Vol. I  1736

A. Who are Aliens, and this either by the Common Law or by Statute.

All those are natural-born subjects whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual Obedience to our King, and whose Place of Birth was within his Dominions.

[observe the absence of any mention of the nationality of the parents, -whether British or foreign, -whether Englishmen or aliens.  That subject is not mentioned because this nationality rule was designed to avoid just that by instead focusing on birth circumstance only.

Also observe that it does not designate all who are natural-born subjects since it does not say “Only those…”.  Its only center of focus is those within the king’s dominion.  It they meet the criterion of being born of fathers who were subject to the king’s authority, then they are among the natural-born subject category.

That directly relates to the requirements of the 14th Amendment (“All persons born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”)  The question is; “why is  ‘under the actual Obedience to our King‘ as equally undefined as was ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’?  The words are ambiguous almost to the point of paralyzing interpretation.

One must conclude that the word “actual” (obedience) indicates something beyond a lesser form of obedience, as in temporary obedience while a resident in-country instead of perpetual obedience for life (within and without the country)

If that is the case, then as I’ve endless asserted, no foreign visitor, tourist, or guest is subject enough for a child born to them within U.S. borders to be considered a U.S. citizen, since they remain fully subject to their home country (which is a disqualifier according to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, written just months before the 14th Amendment.)]

“~in Calvin’s case, those which were born in Normandy, ???? [French territory under English control], while under actual obedience to the Kings of England were subject born, And this by the Statute ????, is declared to have been the Common Law, but those born there now are Aliens, those places not being in the actual possession of our King.

If one of the Kings ambassadors in a foreign country hath issue there by his wife, being an English woman, by the Common Law they are natural-born subjects.

[Common law deemed children of ambassadors to be natural-born subjects but stated no natural principle by which that was not also true of any other British subject visiting abroad.  That is because the offered justification was an exercise in esoteric doctrinal philosophy applied as a legal fiction, -one that could just as well have applied to any British tourist or visitor to foreign lands.]

One born in Ireland (a), Scotland, Wales, or any of his plantations, is a natural subject of England because his natural Allegiance [a fictional concept] is due to the King of England at his birth, and that Faith and Allegiance is everywhere due within his Dominions. [what over-blown self-delusion.  No baby has “natural allegiance at birth” to anything or anyone, -so how can it be “due” to the king?]

(a) The Antenati or those born in Scotland before the Descent of the English Crown on James I are Aliens, for the uniting of the Kingdoms by subsequent descent cannot make them subjects of that Crown to which they were born Aliens; but the Postnati, or such which were born after, are not Aliens; for being born within the Allegiance and under the Protection of the King of England, they are his natural subjects and not aliens.

[but their nationality was previously (forever back in time) related to one’s country, –not one’s king.  “they are his natural subjects”, instead of being England’s natural subjects, -which they weren’t since they could only be that via birth to English parents.]

7 Co 1-18 Calvin’s Case adjudged with the Reasons at Large.

~Those born on the English Seas ~
By a statute 25 Ed. 3 ~”de natis ultra mare”, it is declared, that the King’s children, wherever born, ought to inherit, and that all children Inheritors, [children does not mean minor children, only adult children could inherit] which from henceforth shall be born without the Ligeance of the King, whose fathers and mothers, at the time of their birth, be and shall be of the Faith and Allegiance of the King of England, [meaning still under submission to his authority, -not having settled in another country as a subject of its government or king] shall have and enjoy the same Benefits and Advantages to have and bear the Inheritance within the same Ligeance as other Inheritors aforesaid, in time to come, [only Englishmen could inherit and then only if the father remained subject to the English King.  If the parents were killed by disease or accident, the minor children would have their inheritance placed in a trust for them] provided the mothers of such children do pass [beyond] the sea by the license and will of their husbands.

[-it’s to be presumed that this mandate is analogous to the mandate of the U.S. Naturalization Acts that children born abroad of American parents (“wherever born” are to be considered as natural born citizens (1790) and as citizens of the United States (1795 and thereafter) and not as aliens.

In both cases, British and American, what is codified in a statute is natural law.  The mandate of recognition of such foreign-born children as having the same rights as the native-born, was in neither case an exercise of government authority over their nationality, but simply over the recognition of it, -or lack thereof.

Many minds were ignorant of the principles of natural law, only being cognizant of government authority and government granted “rights”, -not natural rights, and so for those ignorant minds, it was necessary to state in law that the recognition of the ” the King’s children,” was not optional.  It was obligatory by statute of Parliament.

It was included in a statute, in both Britain and the United States, to protect their natural rights as co-equal members of their parents’ nation, (just like their siblings and peers) -not sub-equal members who are only allowed admittance by the goodness of government.

Those statutes in both nations avoided diminishing the impression of the superior authority of the government by deigning to admit the real authority behind the mandate they wrote and passed, which was not government’s right to control natural membership (which right does not exist) but was the preeminence of Natural Rights and natural membership.]

By the 7 Ann., it is enacted that the children of natural-born subjects, born out of the Ligeance of her Majesty, her Heirs, and Successors [beyond the reach of British sovereignty] shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this Kingdom, -to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.

[that is not an order for them to be treated as natural-born subjects, -or as equivalent to such, but is instead an order as to how one’s mind is directed to function.  It is ordered to understand something to be true, not just treat it as though it were fictionally true, but is actually and factually true.

“Deemed” and “adjudged” are clearly from perspectives of the mind, and the order is a mandate as to how the mind is to view foreign-born English sons and daughters.  One way and one way only, and together with “taken to be” constitute a three-fold reinforcement of that order to govern the thinking and assumptions of one’s thought-process regarding them.

The comprehensiveness of the order, including ” -to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever” is not the framing of a legal fiction or pretension of nationality conjured for a special group, but a statement of absolute unquestionable fact, -a truth, an undeniable reality.  It is saying that they are in fact natural born subjects, -and don’t dare even think about second-guessing that determination of the law.]

“The Alien born may become a subject of England two ways; by denization and naturalization.

Denization is the King’s Letters Patents which receives him into the Society as a new Man, and makes him capable to purchase and to transmit lands by descent, but it doth not make him heritable to any other relations; for though the King by his Charter may admit him into the society, yet it cannot alter the Law which denied him to inherit any relations.”

[-two important revelations: becoming a new member of society was considered a conversion or transformation from being a foreigner to being British.  That means a man was not simply someone given a pass, a permission slip, but was a new natural inhabitant of the native’s English homeland.  Second, his rights then passed from father to son by descent, -not by the authority of statute.  Natural law prevailed as in natural societies.]

“But if he be naturalized by an act of Parliament, he shall in all things inherit like a natural-born subject, because in an act of Parliament, every man’s consent is involved. (but all the children of one naturalized shall inherit; as well those born before as after).”

[i.e., the foreign-born children were remade into Englishmen, being made equal to the native-born children, all as a family unit remade together and not divided by birth circumstance.]

[The sovereignty of the People of England was above that of the King in the matter of who was allowed to be a member of their society, which meant that they were not merely members of his world but that he was a member of their world, -they, the free countryman who comprised the nation.

He was allowed no authority to make an alien into an artificial Englishman.  That required the consent of the People through their representatives in the Houses of Parliament.  Similarly, Congress is not allowed that authority either, since that authority remained under the sovereignty of the individual States.

It was their right to decide who they would admit as members of their society, -not the federal authorities which governed only matters assigned to them by the Constitution. Scotland in 1736, (though ruled by the same King as England) continued having its own government and Parliament.  For the king to be allowed to make a foreigner into an Englishmen would have been equivalent to the British Parliament making a foreigner into a Scotsman, or the U.S. federal government making one a citizen of one of the States.]

“A Man may be made a Denizon [either] in tail for life, [for] years, or upon condition. But one cannot be naturalized, either with limitation for years, for life in tail, or upon condition for it is against the absoluteness, purity, and indebility of natural allegiance.”

[-as apposed to “temporary allegiance” which came with mere residency and was not via birth.  One could not be made a temporary subject, -nor a subject diminished by civil limitations, because all subjects were deemed to be natural subjects possessing “natural allegiance”, -and it’s “absoluteness and purity” could not be denigrated by artificial restrictions on the rights that come with it.  That would violate the purity of equality for all.  That shows that there was only one class of subject and not two.  There were no second-class naturalized subjects nor first-class native subjects.  Natural-ization made them equal and the same (fictionally).

That is smoking gun evidence that all citizens in America, -like subjects in Britain, are natural citizens having natural allegiance, although the natural-ized are so by a fiction of law (-not by birth) -along with (in reality) those native-born of aliens.]

“…and naturalization is but a fiction which can only bind those that consent to it.”

“…it is enacted that no person or persons of what quality, condition or place soever, being of 18 years of age or above shall be naturalized or restored in blood [after their father had been attained?] unless such person or persons…shall take the oath of Supremacy and the oath of Allegiance in the Parliament House before his or her bill be twice read; which oath the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper and the Speaker of the House of Commons have authority to administer.”  [apparently, that authority was reserved solely for the leadership and the magistrate of official records.]

“A denizen is not capable of nobility nor fit in the Parliament, for that [in order ] to have a power of making laws, ’tis necessary he should be totally received into the society, -which he cannot be without the consent of Parliament.

[a denizen was like a half-subject, a semi-subject while those of English nobility and rule could not be anything less that 100% English, -with no foreign alienage attached to them.]

“By the 12 & 13 W.3. it is enacted, That no person born out of these kingdoms, (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen) except such as are born of English parents, shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any Office or position of Trust, either civil nor military; or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown to himself, or to any other or others in trust for him.”

[only natural English subjects born of English parents, (born inside or outside of the united Kingdoms) could serve in the government of England, -excluding even natural-born subjects of Scotland or Ireland.  That was to protect national security.  Take no chances on outsiders even though they shared the same monarch.

The king was blocked from being bribed by a wealthy foreigner who could receive in return property belonging to the nation.  What is not included was any mention of those born in England, including common law subjects born of alien immigrants.

Those born anywhere in the world of Englishmen are included.  By including those born abroad, and no others born abroad, the native-born English sons are logically understood to be the bulk of the subjects who were eligible for important positions, but nothing is implied about the alien-born in England.

One could suspect for good reasons of national security, that they were excluded by unspoken policy that could never be put into writing because all native-born subjects were asserted to be politically and civilly equal.]

“But this Statute by the l Geo. I. is explained so as not to extend to disable or incapacitate any person [from national service], (who at or before his Majesty’s Accession to the Crown was naturalized), to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament,.. [etc.] [those naturalized before the king assumed the crown were grandfathered in, but not those after] and by this Statute it is enacted, that no person shall hereafter be naturalized, unless in the bill exhibited for that purpose there be a clause, or particular words inserted, to declare that such person shall not thereby be enabled to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any Office or position of Trust, (…etc) and that no bill of Naturalization shall hereafter be received in either House of Parliament, unless such clause or words be first inserted or contained therein.

[they were not willing to leave it up to people’s presumption that foreigners, though naturalized, could not serve in the English government.  They made it a mandatory element of naturalization that such bills always contain a clause stating specifically the ineligibility of such persons to serve in the government’s positions of Trust.

Only  natives were eligible because they could presumably be trusted to not have foreign loyalties and motives.  But that leaves unanswered the question as to “what kind of native?”  Any English-born native (born anywhere in the world)? -or also any native-born child of aliens?  Again, silence.  It didn’t go there.  Didn’t touch that third rail or pick at that scab.  Perhaps that was addressed elsewhere, -or perhaps nowhere.  Perhaps its ambiguity was knowing and deliberate.]

(C) ~Of the Disadvantages that Aliens lie under, and herein of the incapacity to purchase or inherit
“An alien cannot purchase or inherit any lands in England, and the reason is, because every person is presume [by philosophical viewpoint] to have natural and necessary allegiance to that society that first protected and preserved him [from what?? England was an island, only successfully invaded one time while ruled by a national government] , and therefore he cannot pay any allegiance to any other society, unless he be afterwards received into it.”  [no accepting of dual-allegiance and dual subjection]

“And as an alien himself cannot inherit, so he cannot be inherited; the Grandfather born in England, the son an alien, the grandson born in England, the grandson shall not inherit the grandfather, because he must then represent the father, who cannot be represented; but if the father be an alien, and two brothers born in England, they may inherit each other, because the descent is immediate, and they don’t take by representation of the father.

[skip]  If the eldest son be an alien, the younger brother born in England shall inherit the father; otherwise it were as if the eldest son were attained, because the eldest son and all his descendants are before the younger brother, and the younger brother cannot inherit before that line is extinct; [Primogenitor, the first-born inherits all lands and titles] and it is a foreign presumption, to support that any of the line should come over and have children in England; but the person attained is supposed to have all his children residing in the kingdom under the King’s allegiance; therefore there is a line continuing before that of the younger brother.”

~”For the same reason, if an alien hath four sons, the two eldest aliens, and the two younger naturalized [by Parliament as adults, -not fictionally naturalized by native-birth, -otherwise it would use the same language as in the clauses above; “born in England], and one of the younger sons purchase lands and dies, the eldest brother having issue born within the realm, the younger brother and not the issue of the eldest, shall inherit.”

[the pecking order is revealed.  Native-birth is inferior to naturalization since it is not equivalent to full membership by Parliamentary law.  It is merely membership by allowance of law, not transformation by law.

Since the eldest brother has primary inheritance rights, his first-born son would normally inherit from his uncle, -his father’s younger brother, who was childless.  But since the eldest brother was an alien, his rights were superseded by the higher right of another relative who was fully English (by the fiction of naturalization), namely the naturalized other younger brother.

So the rights of common law subjects were not equal to the blood rights of “natural” subjects.  In such a case the so-called “natural-born subject” son of the elder brother was inferior to the naturalized subject who was foreign-born.  That would indicate that one form of fictional subjectship was superior to another, with that created by Parliament ahead of that due merely to place of birth.  The authority of Parliament was greater than the happenstance location of birth within the realm.]

“If an alien hath a son alien, and afterwards is made a denizen, and hath a second son, the second son shall inherit though the eldest son be alive.”

[the rights of denizens only extended to imparting that same character to their off-spring born outside of England, but those born within the realm were subjects from birth so they had higher inheritance rights.  So it seems that at the bottom were denizens, then common law subjects, then naturalized subjects, -they being deemed the same as actual natural born subjects.]

[The following paragraph is a stellar example of the kind of legalese language needed to eliminate ambiguity from statute law.  It was very much lacking in the wording of the 14th Amendment nationality clause, (and deliberately so) in order to allow ambiguity which could only be construed by the Supreme Court, and not Congress.  Whatever the court would eventually rule, could not be overturned by legislation, and it was assumed that one day it would construe the 14th Amendment differently than what it meant as and when written.  Which it did.

Perhaps in part because the lead justice (Horace Gray) had been appointed by Chester Arthur, who was not born as an American citizen, and thus not eligible to be President because his father did not become an American until he was 14 years old.  If Justice Gray was aware of that fact, that would explain a lot of the distortion seen in that justice’s written “opinion of the court”,- as well as the fact that the court would not allow in as evidence the testimony of what the words of the amendment meant when written, as explained by its authors.]  [~let the legalese begin!…]

And now by the 11 & 13 W. 3. it is enacted, that all and every person or persons, being the king’s natural-born subject or subjects, within any of the King’s realms or dominions, shall and may hereafter lawfully inherit and be inheritable, as heir or heirs to any honors, manors, lands, tenements or hereditaments, and make their pedigrees and titles by descent from any of their ancestors lineal or collateral;

-although the father and mother, or fathers and mothers, or other ancestor of such person or persons, by, from, through or under whom he, she, or they shall or may make or derive their title or pedigree, were or was, or is or are, or shall be born out of the King’s allegiance, and out of his Majesty’s Realms and dominions, as freely, fully, and effectually to all intents and purposes, as if such father or mother, or fathers or mothers, or other ancestor or ancestors, by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they shall or may make or derive their title or pedigree, had been naturalized or natural-born subjects.

[it didn’t matter where one was born, nor where one’s relatives were born, if both bequeather and inheritor were born of natural or naturalized subjects then they would be treated no differently under the law if one or the other, or both, were not born within the King’s realms.

Native birth was not the determinant of natural rights nor national rights but rather, blood membership in the British family (by either descent or by the authority of Parliament) was the determinant.  So jus soli conferred rights but it did not control nor limit the rights of the natives of the nation whose membership was not assigned by jus soli birth-place rights but by ancestry, by blood relationship, by right of patrilineal descent.  The implication for America is that our tradition, (being the same) is that children of Americans, regardless of birthplace, have the same rights,- with the foreign-born being the same as and having the same rights as their native-born siblings and peers, including the inherited right to be President.]

by Adrien Nash  May 2014  obama–


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”.

One Response to The Truth About British Nationality from Ancient Text

  1. arnash says:

    ~from: Patriots for America

    Blackstone went on to say that any person, freeman or alien, except those who were born in the realm of the King of England of diplomats was a natural born subject. There is a problem with a simple substitution of citizen in place of subject, that some people think are synonymous.

    In England, not all natural born subjects of the Crown can become the King. This is reserved for a very small subset of natural-born subjects called the royalty. This is drastically dissimilar to the American concept that any natural born citizen can become President.

    Under Blackstone’s subjects only a very, very small subset of natural-born subjects could rise to be King, the American Presidency is drawn from the largest class of citizens, the natural born. Like the analogy of a field of clover, the Founding Fathers were not looking for that elusive genetic mutation of a four-leaf clover, they were looking for the common, naturally occurring three-leaf clover to be President.

    But Blackstone is confusing on this issue. Blackstone also writes, “To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that ALL children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

    This use of Blackstone gave Great Britain claim over US Citizens, which lead to the war of 1812, when Britain went about impressing American sailors into their navy because English law did not recognize the right of our Founding Father’s naturalizing themselves into our new country. “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman,” [-the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, -for life] was the reason the British used to impress our citizens into service for the Crown.

    This law and concept of claim to the subjects to the Crown, regardless of place of birth, is still in effect in Great Britain, and had the effect of Congress passing a law that required all the officers and three fourths of the seamen on a ship of the United States be natural born citizens. (Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, February 9, 1813) Further, the Crown passed a law that made it treason for former British subjects, even though they were now American citizens to participate on the side of America during the war of 1812. (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, February 23, 1813)

    by Bruce K. Brown Aug. 2013

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: