Six Models of Nationality; Borders versus Bonds of Blood
May 18, 2014 Leave a comment
There are six models that can constitute a nation’s nationality law and policy. They all involve recognized bonds of attachment that assign a person to membership in a nation. Those bonds may be traditional, natural, legal, or merely adopted & enforced policy. To visualize the nature of the different models one has to picture cords or bonds of attachment to different things, -the things that are embraced as the basis of national membership.
The most elemental model would be the tribal model based on bonds to one’s fellow countrymen, -members of the same “tribe” and nation, and having the same ethnicity, language, culture, history, and perhaps religion. They are all members of a great tribe of related people. Think of China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, the original kingdom of Hawaii, or the Kurds or the Basque people, etc., -or the natives of ancient England & Ireland, or Scotland & Wales.
One is born into their group by being born of parents who belong to it. Membership is based on blood, -the blood of the parents and their greater family. It’s known as jus sanguinis, -or “right of blood”. Imagine the individual surrounded by and tied to a great assemblage of fellow countrymen with literal bonds of attachment. That image is important for what is to come.
Its counter model is that of birth location alone. It is known as jus soli, or “right of soil”. By it, one is included as a member regardless of being born of aliens with no blood connection to the native group or groups. Envision bonds between the individual and the soil on which he was born. That ground is everything since it’s the ground belonging to the group. There’s no other basis of national membership, -just location of birth within a certain defined territory.
That membership is not membership naturally recognized by the natives but is recognized by the government. It is an entity that is above the individual, with bonds or ties running from it to the individual and on to the soil (representing national borders). The alien-born child has no natural attachments or ties to the native population. Instead, it is tied to the government’s authorizing authority which authorizes one’s membership in the national group. It is expected and natural that in time, attachments were also form to the natives that surround the alien-born person.
The next model higher in complexity is that which is followed by most nations, including both Britain and the United States. It embraces both models, allowing the 2-3% of the population who are alien-born children of immigrants to be recognized as fellow citizens of those born of natives and naturalized citizens.
The natives are not tied to the government since it is something that they created to serve them. They are only tied to each other. But the alien-born are tied to the government in the form of its authority and law on which they are dependent to make them citizens.
A step up from that in complexity is a model that combines both jus sanguinis and jus soli. Such a model has never existed and never will because it does not merely allow both, but requires both. But it the real world, if one is a member by blood, then blood alone is sufficient because one is born as a member by natural inheritance, -by descent. Or, if one is a member by native-birth, that is sufficient.
The man selected to be the Emperor of the Roman Empire was expected to be both for a couple centuries but that had to change when the best candidate was born outside of Italy. But for his countrymen who were not the Emperor, blood alone was sufficient. Native birth, as in Italy, meant nothing to most or all of the ancient civilizations because of the prevalence of those born of slaves and the native’s sense of superiority over all the peoples that they had conquered. Citizenship by birth was for them alone. All others had to earn it, if possible.
Those two combined models are essentially opposites, so requiring both would be the equivalent to requiring that personnel for a colonizing mission to Mars must be both male and female, -hermaphrodites.
The counterpart to that model is one in which the soil is replaced with fundamental principles of Natural Rights and higher Natural Law, -not the bestial law of the Jungle (the most powerful male dominating the less powerful).
That foundation is the one on which the United States of America was founded, -not soil, not race, not ancestry, not titles nor wealth but principles of liberty, morality, religious freedom, equal rights, -with government subject to the society, -with the States sovereign except in national matters, -with rights of privacy, property, and justice under law.
Americans are not bound together by the coincidental location of their birth occurring within a vast country, but by our American values and principles. They, and the American character, were what was unique and exceptional about America, -not ethnicity, not aristocracy, not hierarchical dependency.
That was the view of those in the federal government’s executive branch. They had the whole nation of 13 separate semi-sovereign countries (and growing) to tie together on a national basis, and that basis was American values and American blood, -not mere birth within American territory. Children born of Native Americans were not U.S. citizens, and neither were children born of foreigners who also were under a non-American sovereignty, -the one that reigned back in their home country, -to which they would return in due time.
But that was not the view of the individual States. They all wanted more people, more growth, more immigrants and more births. One way to encourage that was to continue the policy that had been the law of the American colonies for a century, and that was the policy brought to America from Britain, which recognized the native-born as colonial members from birth.
So it was the policy and /or law of many, most, or all of the States to allow jus soli citizenship even though the State Department and Customs Bureau could view the alien-born as aliens like the father that fathered them. That difference never became a crisis because most foreign men learned English (if they didn’t already know it), and became naturalized Americans (along with their entire family through them).
Once they became Americans, by American principles they joined the throng of natives as new natural(ized) citizens. Their attachments to the government then ended. They joined the bosses of the government and were no longer dependent on it.
Only the government didn’t know that and continued to pass and enforce laws regulating the citizenship of the naturalized for nearly a century, (“the Bancroft treaties”) until finally slapped down by the Supreme Court which found that unequal treatment was a violation of American principles and the 14th Amendment based on them.
Natural-ized citizens were taken to be transformed foreigners who had a total body nationality-blood transfusion with American blood and bone marrow. They were no longer foreigners but wholly American. Not semi-American, -not pseudo American, not quasi-American, but naturally American although not from birth, -which meant they could not be President. Although they had become bone-marrow Americans, they had not been born that way and thus they were not born as “natural born citizens”.
Now it gets complicated by the appearance of an almighty King. Instead of the government alone being above the individual, you have the Crown above the government. So ties of attachment run from the Throne to the government to the individual and then into the soil. The realm of the reigning power of the King is encompassed by the borders of his territory, within which all belong to him except foreign ambassadors.
His power and authority cover all of the lands of his kingdom. All souls born within it are his subjects and he their master because he is a demi-god; -either a earthly embodiment of a deity, or the son of one, or appointed by the God of the Holy Scriptures to bring the rule and protection of Heaven to mere mortals in His ordained plan of the Kingdom of God on Earth.
Whatever the source of his authority, it was absolute. But, it was limited to the area of his dominion and not beyond. So one’s membership was membership in his kingdom, as his subject, and the nation as a whole, and one’s fellow countrymen to whom they were tied by the bonds of life, were irrelevant as elements in one’s national membership since it was the result of one’s relationship to the king and him alone; -not one’s fellows.
So imagine that the native individual is surrounded by his native fellows, with cords of natural attachment connecting them all, -but with the king and his government above him and binding him to them also via cords that run through the individual into the king’s soil.
What do you have in such a situation? You have a conundrum, a conflict, a confusing redundancy of attachments that needs clarifying and simplifying. Is one a member in one’s own nation because one is a natural native member born of native members, or is one a member because one belongs not to one’s nation but to one’s King?
Which is supreme? The country, the countrymen, natural bonds, or His Royal Majesty? Of course the dictator wins. All souls belong to him, so those other bonds need not be acknowledge any longer. They just confuse the clarity of his total ownership of his fellow men. So they have to go.
Imagine all of the ties between the individual and those fellow countrymen surrounding him being cut, cauterized, lasered, -leaving nothing but the ties direct to the king via his government. The countrymen are no longer attached to any other individual. The connection they then have is only that which ties them to the same source, -the monarch. They are bound to the king by being bound to his soil by having been born on it. It’s all about the god-man and not about “the tribe”.
The counterpart to that scenario or model is the model exemplified by Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Instead of the population tied together by the soil they were born on, they were tied together by the blood they were born with. German blood. “Aryan” blood.
That bond was the excuse for invading foreign nations which were home to ethnic Germans who were going to be “protected” the the German Army and Nazi government. We saw the same thing recently when mother Russia invaded the Crimea to re-embrace her ethnic Russian children. It wasn’t about where anyone was born but about who they were bonded to by blood.
A final model would be exemplified by North Korea. With those authoritarian fanatics, it is about neither only soil nor blood. If a man and his pregnant wife escape from the North on say a small fishing boat, and it is in international waters where she gives birth. The North Korean government will consider the child its property just like its parents who had no Natural Right of free choice of their nationality nor their exit from the nation and government that own them.
It doesn’t care that the baby wasn’t born in the North, nor that its parents were Korean by blood. After all, they have no claim on all of the Koreans by blood who live in South Korea, so blood alone does not make one a North Korean. Instead, it is shear power. The exercise of absolute authority over all souls within its borders who are of North Korean descent. And that could include ethnic Chinese who had lived there for a few generations.