Natural-Born, Native-Born, Subject in British Law
May 15, 2014 3 Comments
Encyclopedia of the Laws of England with Forms and Precedents by… Vol. 9
I transcribed this verbatim from a Google-Books scan of an expository work probably not available as digital text. Its subject matter was so germane to the issue of nationality and presidential eligibility that it deserved the time required to copy it into modern text with all “s”s converted from “f”s. I don’t recall but I assume that it was a collection of writings from long-ago right up to the 20th Century. I’ve inserted my comments in brackets. ~
Natural-Born, Native-Born, Subject. – At common law everybody whose birth happened within the legiance of the Crown was a natural-born subject; all else, unless they were children of the King, were aliens (see sub voc. Alien).
[background from the link at the bottom: BRITISH NATIONALITY: SUMMARY
The position at common law:
1.1 The forerunner of modern nationality was Allegiance. Feudal lords demanded the allegiance of their local communities and those lords, in turn, swore allegiance to the monarch. As the powers of the monarchy increased, the concept of allegiance broadened into a general allegiance to the Crown. All those who owed allegiance to the Crown were the Crown’s subjects, and Common law generally attributed subject status to those born within the Crown’s territories. Over time, however, this concept was found to be inadequate and statutory remedies were sought to cope with such matters as the status of the children of English subjects born abroad and the desirability of enabling aliens to acquire subject status.
1.2 After the Act of Union 1707, joining England and Scotland, “English subject” became “British subject”. Those who were not British subjects were aliens.]
“The character of a natural-born subject, anterior to any of the statutes, was incidental to birth only; whatever were the situations of his parents, -the being born within the allegiance of the King constituted a natural-born subject” (Kenyon, C.J. in Doe d. Duroure v. Jones, 1791, …)
[how could native-birth alone “constitute a natural-born subject” when the term had not even been invented yet prior to the Calvin case? Before then there were natural subjects, naturalized subjects, and something else perhaps called alien-born subjects or native-born subjects or statutory denizens, or subjects made.]
And this rule is still the foundation of our law.
[a rule can be based on a principle, but the nationality-by-native-birth rule was not, and that is why he did not state “this principle…”. The rule was as arbitrary as the borders of the kingdom (with the exception of the seashore).]
Children born in an English ship are born within the allegiance, [either the word “allegiance” has changed considerably since then, or he/ they used the term in an inappropriate manner as if it were synonymous with sovereignty or jurisdiction or authority] and an ambassador’s house is also reputed to be part of his sovereign’s realm, so as to confer upon the children of the ambassador born therein the character of natural-born subjects, (Cockburn, Nationality, p. 7; Westlake, International Law, 1904, part i, p. 213) but this principle did not at common law, and apart from express statutory provision, extend to the offspring, born abroad, of parents serving the King abroad in any other capacity, e.g. that of soldier (see De Geer v Stone, ut cit. inf.)
[for probably a thousand years ( perhaps since the invasion of the French King William (the Conqueror) in 1066), British nationality rules & policy were a hodge-podge of slapped together doctrines, all attempting to remedy short-comings (due to the abandonment of Natural Law & patrilineal descent) by means of invented fictions and statutory acts to restore what jus soli stole from the English countrymen whose child happened to be born beyond the borders of England / Britain, -and for a time Normandy, France.
Because jus soli is not based on any natural principle, none can be given to justify the results or policies of its rule. Hence, an ambassador’s home is “reputed” to be sovereign British soil. That’s just dream-world fantasizing, fairy-tale magic talk. Like national pixie dust was sprinkled on it making it transcendentally British-soil linked. What balderdash.
The Ambassador’s home was on foreign soil, had no natural immunity from anything, and everything else was purely an accepted fiction which served everyone since they also had foreign ambassadors.
“Let’s all pretend! My embassy is magically on my own soil so you can’t enter it since that would violate my sovereignty. Okay? And the same with your embassy in my country. It’ll work just great! Everyone will be safe ’cause no one will dare cross the taboo line.”
The other fiction was tied to it because it declared that the ambassador’s son was a natural-born subject because he was born on British soil (fictional soil, sure, but we are pretending “for reals” here).
All of his fellow foreign-born British babies are out of luck because their parents don’t live in the magic embassy on transmogrified soil that has been magically made British. Too bad! Their natural rights were cancelled, annulled, expired at water’s edge. Too bad they couldn’t bring British rule with them like on a British ship.
But on a foreign sovereign’s soil, all laws are his laws so “if he says you belong to him, who am I, your king, to argue with him. He has possession of you through his authority over your parents. You belong to them but they do not belong to him since they belong to me, so how exactly do you belong to him directly when you directly belong to them?”
It’s kind of confusing but that’s just the way it is. Your rightful king would call you his subject because you are born of his subjects who carry their nation’s blood in their veins, -as well as do you, -but sovereign soil is supreme. Oh well, …What cha’ gonna do? It’s the new way of ascribing nationality. Blood is passe. So yesterday. Now it’s all about location, location, location of birth!
You chose the wrong location and so now you have to suffer for deciding to leave your mother’s womb in the wrong country. What a foolish decision that was! Oh well. It’s okay, ’cause the wise old men of the government will fix it and make you a national member by saying it is so in a statute.
The non-native-born will thus be embraced as fellow members of the nation once they are firmly on British soil. The dislocation has been taken care of and now you can inherit your English ancestors’ estate. Your inheritance rights are the same as everyone else’s.
But are you the same? Really the same? Of course you are. You also are a natural Britain just like those born within the British borders. There’s no difference. But if you were an American, maybe there would be a difference.
Maybe some would say that although you are deemed to be a U.S. citizen, -and even declared a natural born citizen by the first U.S. Congress ever, you are not a real natural born citizen, -just an artificial or unnatural “natural born citizen” and therefore not allowed to be something that didn’t exist in Britain, namely; the President of the United States and the commander of the American military. ~]
The status of the parents is of no account, provided [requiring] only that the offspring be born within the realm. “A child born of foreign parents even during an accidental stay of a few days is fully (and until the age of 21 years) irretrievably, a British subject” (Hall, p. 20).
[~and there you have it! -the greatest, most arrogant, self-serving nationality rule ever invented. You, born of foreign subjects, are chained to the British king until adulthood (!) just because your mother didn’t get herself out of his dominion before delivery. But what did that mean in the real world? What authority did the British government have or exercise over babies, children, or youths?
They were relevant to nothing until adulthood unless they were forced to attend the Church of England. But that would be impossible since the parents were in Britain only for a “ stay of a few days” and then returned across the channel to their own country where the King of England had no authority.
That royal-ownership statement almost implies that they were not allowed to leave his realm until they reached 21 years of age. I can’t imagine that being the case. One might need papers to enter the country at a regulated port, but not to leave it from anywhere along the coast. So it’s a bit of a mystery.
Note in the earlier passage that the ambassador’s house is “reputed” to be on British soil. And what is the rule regarding British soil? Everyone born on it is automatically a subject of the King, and yet, we were told what about all other British babies who might be born on that “soil”?
We were told that the ambassador’s house is in effect (namely in reality) on foreign soil and so the rule of his British-soil house does not apply to any babies except his! How magical! No, not magic; just mental gymnastics in order to get around the outcomes of their own rules; -a rule of exception to the exception of the imagined rules that are “reputed” to be like some fictional reality.]
The character of natural-born subject is not given to persons born in a place which, though rightfully part of the dominions of the British Crown, happens to be at the time of the birth in the military possession of an enemy (see Calvin’s case). The learning, old and new, of the subject will be found very fully in these cases: Calvin’s case, 1608, 6 Jac. 1; …Collingwood v. Pace,… De Geer v. Stone 1882, … Isaacson v Durant, 1886. Of these, De Geer v. Stone will be found especially useful upon the effect of the authorities and statutes anterior to the Naturalization Act of 1870.
[“authorities” would have to mean judicial holdings and explanations of their significance by legal scholars, -in contrast to “legal principles and statutes…”. “The character of natural-born subject is not given…” Character cannot be “given” since it is something one is born with. Only classification can be “given” or assigned.]
The exception in favour of the King’s children was recognised by the common law; all other exceptions to the broad rule have been made by statute.
[~so the court came up with a new “broad rule” for nationality but since it was not based on any principle, it had holes in it which required patching by making exceptions for situations that the principle of blood connection would have addressed but the invented rule could not. But statutes were needed to allow the granting of rights and status of subjects.]
In Edward III’s reign, the question of the capacity of children born beyond the seas to inherit the estates of their ancestors was raised at large (Parliament Roll, 17 Edw. III (1343), p. 139),
[note that it wasn’t a question of foreigners inheriting property left to them by perhaps their mother or grandmother who was a foreigner who married an Englishman. Rather, it was about nothing other than the remembered and perhaps recorded foreign geographical location of the birth-place of an Englishman who had probably lived his entire life in England being that which he was born as; an Englishman, -but one whose national membership and natural rights were dependent on an authoritarian-elevated, and enthroned long-past, brief event distant in time and memory (like Obama’s mythical “reputed” Hawaiian birth for which no witnesses ever existed).
But some dumb pencil-pushers felt it was their rule-defending role in life to enforce the status quo rule that foreigners were not allowed to inherit English property. That, no doubt, was the rule when it was first advanced; no foreigners inherit, –NOT no foreign-born persons inherit.
So how did their little pin-heads turn Englishmen into foreigners? By pointing out that they weren’t born on English soil. So English soil was the god-like determinant of nationality since it was owned by the god-like King, His Royal Highness, and not the English blood of one’s “ancestors” whose estate was left to them?
Confused thinking by confused little minds ignorant of the foundational principle of natural membership. In their royal-boot-licking, sycophantic little minds, everything was about the King and not the country. Everything!
By natural law one is tied to their nation by the natural bond of blood relationship. That bond and the national blood it was rooted in did not end at the water’s edge. The child that a mother of the nation bore on any soil anywhere belonged to her, and through her belonged to her country, -born of the blood of its ancestors.
But the authority of the King did end at the water’s edge, and so if one was not born on his soil, then one was not born under his authority and was perhaps therefore a foreigner, perhaps… -And since one was not born directly subject to the authority of the King, even though one is definitely subject through their father who is subject, the foreign-born child, in order to not be subject to the British King, would have to not be subject to his own father!
That is an impossibility, -and thus the invented royal dogma of royal-authority based nationality is seen to contain an inescapable paradoxical self-contradiction due to the conflict between natural law and man-made rules.
-Instead of certainty about all children of Englishmen being English by English blood, there was “doubt and difficulty” ~]
~because of “doubt and difficulty” in the particular instance of the king’s children, there was declared to be no doubt; but as to the general rule, [being English is a matter of being born in England (?) -or that foreigners could not inherit (which was law)?] a decision was postponed until seven years later, when the matter was dealt with by:
the Act de Nativis Ultra Mare, 26 Edw. III, stat. 1, (1350), which was declaratory as to the King’s children. It enacted that certain persons named [there were so few that they could be individually named] who were born out of the legiance of England should from thenceforth have the same rights of inheritance as those born within the same; and finally provided that “all children inheritors which from henceforth shall be born without the legiance of the King, [ it’s all about the king and not the country] whose fathers and mothers at the time of their birth be and shall be at the faith and legiance of the King of England, shall have and enjoy the same benefits and advantages, -to have and bear the inheritance within the same legiance, as the other inheritors aforesaid in time to come; so always, that the mothers of such children do pass the sea by the license and wills of their husbands.”
This statute (followed by others either dealing with the circumstances which make a person “natural-born,” -or enacting that certain classes of persons shall have the right to be deemed natural-born subjects of the Crown: 29 Car. II c. 6, 1676), naturalised the children of English subjects born out of the kingdom “during the late troubles” (State Trials, vol. viii 534); 11 & 12 Will. III. c.6 (1700), enabled natural-born subjects to inherit their ancestors’ estates, notwithstanding their fathers or mothers were aliens; by 7 Anne, c. 5 (1708), [note is doesn’t say “fathers and mothers”, indicating that it was one or the other]
the children of all natural-born subjects born out of the legiance of His Majesty are to be “deemed, adjudged, and taken to be natural-born subjects;” 4 Geo.II. c.21 (1731), s. 1, explains the Act of Anne , and applies it to the children of all natural-born subjects of “the Crown of England and Great Britain”.
13 Geo. III. c.21 (1773), gives the like privilege to the children of all persons entitled to it by the last-named Act and by that of Anne.
[“entitled to it” by Natural law recognized by the acts. -be aware that subjectship by descent for the foreign-born children of subjects was based on the nationality of the father alone. That likewise was the policy of the American federal government.]
These statutes are now completed, and rendered practically obsolete, by the Naturalisaton Act of 1870, 33 & 34 Vict. c. 14 (… and see Alien; Alienage; Denization.
The Legitimacy Declaration Act of 1858, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 93, furnishes a procedure for enabling “persons to establish their right to be deemed natural-born subjects,” and provides for the declaration of the legitimacy or of the validity of the marriage of any natural-born subject, or any person whose right to be deemed a natural-born subject depends wholly or in part on his legitimacy, or on the validity of a marriage, being domiciled in England or Ireland.
Such persons may claim a declaration of the validity of the marriage of their parents or grandparents under this Act (see sub voc. LEGITIMACY).
The Extradition Treaty, 1870 (Article 2) excepts “native-born: or naturalised subjects of either Power from extradition; “native-born” is synonymous with “natural-born” (in re Guerin, 1889, 37 W.R. 269)
[note; both have and need the hyphen because they are compound adjective phrases, -with natural-born being purely an invention of legal language; whereas “natural + born are separate adjectives using common words which created no compound phrase as seen in “a born natural citizen”]
It may be pointed out that the rule of the common law, as stated at the outset, holds, except in so far as statute law has limited or extended it. Thus the status of a “natural-born subject” is still a personal status; [emphasis not added] and though, by the combined force of 7 Anne, 4 Geo. II. and 13 Geo III., the children and grandchildren of natural-born subjects have the rights of natural-born subjects, yet this principle goes no lower down the line of descent; the status is not transmissible [from father to child] to all time. On the other hand, the abjuration by a natural-born subject of his allegiance will not deprive his son and grandson of the benefit of those Acts (Fitch v. Weber, 1847…)
[at that point in time (1847) Britain had accepted the American Natural Rights model of nationality and allegiance by individual adult choice and had rejected over two centuries of “perpetual allegiance” for life.]
The character of a natural-born subject is, as a rule, indelible (Macdonald Case, 1747, 18 St. Tri. 857), except in so far as the common law has been modified by statute. The Naturalisation Act of 1870, is not retrospective (…) British nationality is not inherited through women (Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 180). … A woman, being a British-born subject, on marrying an alien ceases to be a British subject. (Conflict of Laws, 173 & 740). Marriage in no case affects the nationality of a man.
[on American soil also, it is the father’s nationality that is passed to his children. Outside the U.S. it is via either of one’s parents by statute. So Obama, if born in the U.S., did not inherit his mother’s citizenship, and if born abroad, could not since she was too young by several months. Thus his only claim to citizenship is via birth within U.S. territory to a father subject to the federal government’s full jurisdiction, -which his father was not since he was merely a guest of the government and not a permanent member of American society. Thus Barack is not a U.S. citizen under the law, although he is considered a citizen under established policy. But the policy does not conform to the law, which is the 14th Amendment as interpreted by a Supreme Court opinion in 1898.]
Sec. 6 provides that “any British subject who has at any time before or may at any time after the passing of this Act, when in any foreign State and not under any disability, voluntarily become naturalised shall from and after the time of having become naturalised in such foreign State be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject and be regarded as an alien;” and considerably retrenches the old broad rule, Nemo potest exuere patriam suam; (but that rule still holds good to the extent of forbidding a British subject from transferring his allegiance to some Power actually at war with us; it was so decided in R. v. Lynch,  …. a trial at bar for high treason; and it was further held that the very act of becoming naturalised under such circumstances is itself treason).
[When a subject naturalizes as a citizen of another country, why is he deemed to no longer be British but an alien? Because nationality is like marriage. Bigamy is not allowed. You can’t have two spouses and you can’t by your own choosing have two countries. It is one or it is the other.
Dual-nationality as anything other than an automatic function of nationality law is forbidden because it involves deliberately choosing sides. Many nations don’t care but then they were never imperial powers with a world-wide empire or influence. They may be minor nations who would be happy to have citizens of major nations pick them for a second citizenship. It would be considered a compliment. But for the young United States it was neither about pride nor honor, but about national security.
That was not generally the case since dual-citizenship by native-birth to foreign parents was irrelevant to eligibility to serve in Congress, the military, or the courts. But it was an insurmountable barrier to the position of Command in Chief which accompanied the presidency. For wielding that power one had to be married to only one country from birth, -with no direct attachments to any other nation or sovereign. One had to have only American roots, attachments, and inherited citizenship. No foreign alienage was allowed, -namely that inherited from a foreign father who perhaps was not even an immigrant, much less the child of an American father.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Natural Person. – A term used in contradistinction to an artificial or fictitious person, such as a corporation. A natural person who is a citizen by blood is a natural citizen. A natural citizen is anyone born of citizens, made in their citizen image, -a chip off the same citizen block, born of citizen blood.
They, without any influence by government, nor dependence on law, comprise the natural corpus of the nation. Besides their kind there’s a small number of outsiders whose status must be determined. If they are allowed full membership, it is by law, -not by natural right.
Under the common law, both natural subjects and natural citizens were joined by alien-fathered subjects or alien-fathered citizens. In Britain, they eventually took to calling every subject a natural-born subject, including those natural-ized, but in America that was not the case since “subject” was thrown out, and “natural-born” along with it.
After the Calvin case, both the alien-born and natural born were lumped together as “natural-born subjects”. That designation erased the origin of their subjecthood or nationality. It was akin to mixing three cups of chopped pineapple in a blender with a quarter cup of blueberries. It didn’t change the nature of the pineapple but it changed the appearance overall as the two became something new and different. -becoming a compound category whose elements were no longer distinct and separate. That was because all native-born children and naturalized subjects were equally subject to HIS ROYAL MAJESTY.
In America, the founders threw-out his royal majesty, subjecthood, and the term used to describe it. Instead we had natural citizens by blood connection (about 98% of inhabitants), and citizens by native-birth in accord with the still operating policy of the common law. By British terminology, those citizens were an American version of natural-born subjects, and were probably called as much by legal authorities whose education left their legal consciousness subordinated to British statutes and common law.
But the American national government, unlike the State governments, did not consider them to be natural Americans since they were the issue of foreign blood, -produced by foreigners still subject to their foreign king. They would not accept them as being married to two nations, born of two nations, bound to two nations with bonds of attachment to two nations.
They were either 100% American or 100% foreign unless and until their father became an American. Does that mean that if they traveled abroad, the U.S. government would view them as aliens and not Americans? Possibly. It was all a matter of State Department and Justice Department policy. But it is a mistake to assume that somehow the federal government knew that nationality of an American’s father when they were born. It could not know such a thing, so any State citizen who requested American travel documents from the feds was accommodated and treated equally.
The central government didn’t care if one was alien-born or American born, -unless an alien-born person sought the position of President. Then the difference made all the difference in the world. Or it should have if anyone was watching and paying attention to constitutional eligibility.
But like now, few were, -even a century ago. (with the exception cited by Breckenridge Long, “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen‘ Within the Meaning of the Constitution?” Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146, p. 220 (1916) Charles Evans Hughes; I’ve expounded on that inquiry but don’t know which exposition it was featured in. It’s very, very revealing.)
Everyone was too distracted and indifferent. They had their own lives to lead, -it wasn’t their job to be concerned about fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, -and amazingly, it wasn’t viewed as the job of the government either, -even though the matter was under the purview of the electoral college and the Congress, -not to overlook the States which had to allow candidates to appear on their ballots.
If the buck stopped at no desk in particular, then it stopped nowhere. Everyone was exempt from guilt because it was never constitutionally assigned to any particular party. And so that is what gave America an unconstitutional President, twice!
Natural-born subject = natural-born citizen, but no natural-born citizen is allowed to be President. Only natural born citizens are allowed.
Huh? Employing the British terminology to create “natural-born citizen” results in the same sort of amalgamation as it did in Britain; by which every subject is a natural-born subject. But the British, to please their King and his Olympian-size ego, based all nationality (except that granted by Parliament) on each individual’s relationship to him, so descriptive labels such as “his natural subjects”, “his alien-born subjects” and “his naturalized subjects” could all just be referred to as “his natural-born subjects”. Simplicity and harmony achieved!
But not so in America which rejected the king and his government’s terminology, namely; “natural-born“. The American national government followed Natural Law as the basis of Natural Rights and national membership. It saw citizens as either natural citizens by birth or natural citizens by natural-ization, -making them fiction-of-law natural citizens. The alien-born were not natural citizens even though some, or many, or most, or all of the States recognized common law citizenship at birth. They were native-born citizens but not natural citizens.
Under the British, a “natural-born subject” was the same as a native-born subject because the common law rule was that all of the native-born were deemed to be “natural-born subjects” regardless of parentage. But natural-born subjects” were not the same as natural subjects since that term implied a subject by descent, -by bloodline. That was the reason to cease using it. Since they were in no way viewed as superior under the law to alien-born subjects; -thus the term “natural” alone used to distinguish them was viewed as implying inequality via blood superiority, which was disharmonious. So to avoid the impression of an alien-fathered inferior class of subjects, they were all labeled with the same label; “natural-born”.
Did that policy carry on in the individual States of America following independence? It did to the extent adhered to by 13 sovereign American nations, but after they created the union and government of the United States of America under the Constitution, it was not the policy of the national government. It rejected the feudal-based system of British common law nationality and embraced the Natural Law principle of natural membership instead.
Single men and family units were allowed only one nationality, not two. That meant rejecting a different nationality for a foreign father’s children. It had to be his nationality and his alone. No disharmony within a family. The family nationality was derived from his nationality. If he was foreign, then so were his children and his wife, -and, in the opposite of Britain, that was regardless of place of birth, -not regardless of parentage. The pendulum swung back to where it had been before it was perverted by giant royal egos and the sycophants that fed it.
Also, in the opposite of Britain, instead of having one term to describe a variety of classifications, in America there was a variety of terms to describe a single classification. It could be called “the natural born” classification (no hyphen). They could be labeled “the native citizens” (not “native-born”), “the natural citizens”, -“the born natural citizens” or “the natural born citizens” or as used by John Jay; the “natural born citizens”.
If he had intended his words to be taken as the equivalent to “natural-born subject” then he could not have and would not have underlined the word “born”. Doing so would have been as asinine as underlining; “natural-born subject” or “natural-born subject”. Neither can be done because neither natural nor born alone modify “subject”. They are and must be taken as a unitary, indivisible compound-adjective legal fiction. Neither word can be singled out. But in America, post revolution, they could and were since the words were severed from rejected British roots. They were free to mean what they mean in Natural Law, and the King’s rules be damned.
So you can see the importance and significance of the hyphen and its absence in America. That significance can be highlighted by an analogy. Suppose that all of the men of a nation were called together to hash-out the rules of nationality, -who would be insiders and who would be outsiders. Suppose they formed themselves into two groups separated by a line between them. Suppose that one group shouted at the other; “We are Englishmen because we were born of English blood!”
The other groups is surprised for a moment as the thought hits them; “what?, so was I!”
Then it is their turn and they shout out “We are Englishmen because we were born in England!”
The first group is then surprised as they think to themselves; “What? -so was I!” Then both sides are confused and don’t know how to proceed. Into the center steps a wise old man who might explain the situation to them. They query him; “Are we British because of the one or because of the other, -or because of both???”
He answers; “Yes. The answer is: ‘yes’. It is ‘all of the above’. All are covered by resort to both natural rules and human rules. What common law and statutes do not cover, natural law covers. So in answer to the question; “On what is nationality based?”, -one must not confuse nationality with natural nationality.
One, the first, includes anything and everything that man cares to add to the second, but the second includes nothing that man adds. It is all natural. It is primal. It is organic. So if such a principle of national membership is not followed, the confusion is unavoidable in rare circumstances that require exceptions. There are no doctrinal solutions to unusual circumstances and so exceptions in law have to be written since following natural relationships has been abandoned.
What exceptions, you ask? They are the ones unseen but present in both of your groups. One group is composed of the self-labeled “native-born”, but among their natural numbers are a few unnatural members who were born of aliens. They are not very welcome as members but they qualify by the groups criteria.
And in the other group, there are some who were not native-born of Englishmen, but were foreign-born of Englishmen. They are natural Englishmen by ancestry, -by descent, by English blood, but lack the benediction of the hallowed English soil owned and ruled by His Royal Majesty.
Does the royal common law rule trump the Natural Law principle of natural membership? Do borders trump blood? Does an arbitrary human rule trump hundreds of years of ancestry? Does the power, the natural strength, -the authority of the Alpha Male to make all of the rules for his group trump the Natural Rights and natural belonging of the members of his group? Does one’s connection to him trump one’s connection to their own country and countrymen?
Can one’s lack of direct subjection to his border-limited authority render one an alien and foreign to their own parents and relatives and countrymen? Just how great of a god is His Highness that the natural law of belonging, of relationships, -of membership can just be ignored like it doesn’t even exist? Does not one belong to their own, -their own child or parent; their own sisters & brothers, their own town or village, country or nation? How can one be rendered an alien simply based on where one’s mother was situated when they were born, (-a fact that no human that ever lived has ever remembered, nor ever been able to)?
How can such an inconsequential occurrence which lasts mere minutes determine that one is the property of a monarch for life? Answer: Only by an asinine man-made matrix of nationality rules meant to exalt the power of the supreme Lord of the Land; -His Supreme Highness the King of all Lords & Noblemen of the realm. Only such a policy and its rules would produce such a travesty.
So “natural-born subject” = “natural-born citizen” but “natural-born citizen ≠ natural born citizen.
The first is common law but the second is Natural Law, and therein lies the difference. If the Constitution’s phrase had contained a hyphen, then that would have spared me from having to write several hundred thousand words of exposition to explain that “natural” is connected to “citizen” and not to “born”. No hyphen = no connection.
It’s actually that simple. The American term is not a term-of-artifice or a legal fiction idiom as was the British term. Therefore it cannot be understood in terms of the common law. It can only be understood in terms of Natural Law. That is the inevitable and inescapable realization springing from the use of the word “natural” situated free of any hyphen. Its absence is irrefutable proof that “natural” modifies “citizen”, requiring that one be born as a natural citizen and not a “natural-born citizen”.
To illustrate: “birth-place location”, like “natural-born subject” is a compound phrase with a unitary meaning. The hyphen serves a very real purpose. One would not and could not underline an individual word such as “birth-place location”, -or “birth-place location”.
You must take the two words together or you don’t take them. You either have “location” alone (equal to “subject”) or you have “birth-place location”. You do not have; “place location” but you could have “birth location” just as you could have “natural subject”.
But you could not have “place-birth location” even though you could have “a born natural citizen”. With the hyphen in place you have the natural plus the artificial combined, including together all forms of subjects, and thus serving no purpose beyond conveying the meaning of the root word “subject”.
Without a hyphen you have only the natural meaning of the words. They convey no “legal” “term-0f-art” meaning because they do not constitute a term of legal artifice. Their meaning is simply their natural meaning. It is one without duplicity or ambiguity. It is not this type or that type of citizen, or a combination of the two. It is simply the off-spring of citizens, the child of Americans, a citizen by bloodline, an American by descent, a natural member of the corpus Americanus, an American by nature, and not just “from” birth, or “at” birth” but “by” birth via unadulterated American blood. Such Americans are eligible to be President. Some of their number were born on foreign soil, but none of their number were born of foreign blood.
by Adrien Nash May 2014 obama–nation.com
Here’s the official Summary of the history of British Nationality (19 page pdf) :