Separating Citizenship Facts from Fictions and Lies
May 26, 2014 Leave a comment
a.r.nash writes regarding ALLEGIANCE:
~In free republics comprised of free citizens, “allegiance” is not “owed” to anything except the foundational charter of the nation; the Constitution.
It is not owed to a sovereign, a government, nor to its leaders, so there is no analogy in America to British allegiance “owed” to the dictator on the throne “authorized” by the Divine Right of Kings.
No such allegiance is an element of a society of free men who owe each other allegiance, -which means they owe each other their service in the defense of their society and nation, -regardless of the cost to them.
In place of allegiance to the King is one’s natural duty to one’s own. All who males and are adult, healthy and able, are obligated by natural and national bonds to defend the old and the young, the female and the disabled, from foreign conquest and subjugation, or worse. They are obligated to defend their mothers and wives, their sisters and daughters, their children and seniors.
Allegiance is nothing other than faithful loyalty. Loyalty is not “owed” by free men, -it is theirs to give or not give, -a personal devotion or choice, just like nationality, -which can be switched. What is “owed” is obedience to legitimate law.
In free republics, citizens are not measured by degrees of loyalty as if under a king. They are instead obligated by their co-responsibility for the survival (in freedom) of the nation.
The chosen laws of free nations include, when required, mandatory participation in national defense. One’s sense of loyalty is irrelevant.
One’s duty under law is all that is. Shirk that duty and you go to prison.
That duty springs from birth as a member of one’s parents’ society. That membership binds one to their shared duty.
Only those born of members are naturally under that duty. And no one NOT born of natural members is constitutionally allowed to be the Command-in-Chief of the armies of the nation because of the risk of secret loyalty to a foreign power resulting from having an alien parent.
~learn more via my exposition: How “The Ring of Power” and a Traitor Shaped Presidential Eligibility
It shares how history, -from Caesars to Kings to traitors influenced the thinking of the framers.
~ ~ ~
Carlyle said… “Let us say that in the near future, conclusive facts emerge that prove (even by obot standards) that Obama is not NBC.“
I’m not sure you grasp the real inference of your words. Obots do not have “a standard” for NBC other than children of ambassadors and naturalized citizens are not it. It lumps together everyone recognized from birth as being an American.
I just posted a new exposition titled: How Obama Jr. Makes Hitler Jr. Eligible [https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/how-obama-jr-makes-hitler-jr-eligible/]
In it I shine a spotlight on the incredible position of the obots that ANYONE born in the U.S. can be President as long as their father isn’t a foreign ambassador.
I share how my thinking was always influenced by the factor of his American mother, but I strip her from the picture and substitute Hitler’s pregnant wife.
Result: a natural born American citizen in their deluded eyes.
What kind of a standard is that? Native birth = Presidential eligibility. Period.
Nothing else will legitimize Obama, -not even common law citizenship given to children of immigrants per the WKA opinion since his father was not an immigrant and thus wasn’t subject to America’s full sovereign political authority over citizens.
By it, he is not even a citizen even if born in the White House, -so they can’t go by it. They have to go by a fantasy that the 14th Amendment bestows natural citizenship and that the second of its two requirements (subjection) does not exist as written.
The delusion is that required subjection is automatic, -except for foreign ambassadors, -with children of all other foreigners being automatically American. FALSE!
But from the founding of the nation, children weren’t subject, women weren’t subject, immigrants and their children weren’t subject until the Wong court declared that their children were. Then BINGO! Citizenship for all immigrant-born children.
But Attorney General John Griggs changed that into a policy that not just immigrants were subject, but ALL aliens were subject, although many aliens are NOT immigrants and are thus excluded. But not in the obot’s Bizarro world where even alien-born children are natural born citizens because native-born means natural.
~ ~ ~
In the doctrine that characterizes “natural born citizen” as “a term of art” in need of a “definition”, “art” means artifice, which means something artificial, meaning a fake, manufactured meaning and not a literal meaning.
Ask yourself; is “a natural born Texan” a term of art? How about my natural born child? Or a natural born Martian? Do all Martians have to be born on Mars? Can’t one be born on Earth? Would that make one an non-natural Martian? Of course not!
Same with natural born citizens. They are simply citizens by birth. What is a citizen by birth? It is anyone born of citizens, …citizen-born. A natural born citizen is simply a citizen-born citizen.
A natural born donkey is simply a donkey-born donkey and not a Zebra-born donkey (a hybrid)
“the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.”
I once thought and wrote the very same thing, until it dawned on me after a few years that the words “of the United States” were absent. That changed everything.
I realized that the framers meant themselves when allowing (in perpetuity) only natural born citizens to serve. They were almost all born as natural citizens of their colonial country, (whichever of the 13 it was) -making them “natural born subjects” of the British King, and natural citizens of the society into which they were born.
On July 4, 1776, their citizenship did not change even though the sovereignty of their colony did. It changed by becoming independent. Their citizenship changed by the elimination of their subject status attached to it. Then they were only subjects/ citizens of their newly declared independent homeland (their home “State”)
They were thus the natural born citizens of the allied, united States of America and thus eligible by their own words to serve as President, -even if they had barred the other class of legal citizens of the united States, which they allowed to be eligible for a limited time. AN
~ ~ ~
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. asked; “Would you care to explain to us all if Congress wanted to do all those things that you said it wanted to do in 1790, why it changed its mind about whether those foreign-born [American] children were natural born citizens, deciding that they were only “citizens of the United States,” which if not natural born citizens, under Article II were no longer eligible to be President?”
Your thinking ability in regard to the subject is derailed by your ingrained preconception, so you’re not readily grasping that “Congress” did NOT change its mind.
It was a different Congress, -different people populating it, -people who did not understand the reason for the presidential eligibility protection added in the first Naturalization. Act in 1790.
Those representatives did NOT “decide” that foreign-born Americans were an inferior variety of citizen, they simple simplified the act be removing the language they didn’t understand since they were not a part of writing it.
They failed to see any reason for the subject of presidential eligibility to be included in the act.
They also failed to understand that the first Congress included mention of foreign-born American children expressly for that purpose and not for the purpose (assumed by later Congresses) of making it clear that they are not aliens as they would have been under the British system.
That was NOT the reason for their inclusion in that first act. The first Congress assumed that no one in government would assume that American children were aliens in need of naturalization, but might presume that they did not qualify for presidential eligibility.
The later Congresses were unaware that the first Congress labeled such American children as natural born citizens in order to protect their natural citizenship from not being recognized and acknowledged by government officials with authority over elections and ballots in regard to the presidency.
Rather, they assumed that some would not comprehend that native-birth was not an element of natural citizenship and that foreign-birth was not a disqualifier since natural citizens are produced solely by the natural factor of having citizen parents.
Your view of this matter is skewed off-tracked by a misunderstanding of the categories involved. Natural born citizens (the citizen-born) were 98% of the population. Only the alien-born and the naturalized were not nbc.
Understand that the nbc label is like that for a natural son, while the tiny minority who were not nbc could be labeled like a step-son, or illegitimate son, or adopted son. Two different groupings. NBC and non-NBC.
If you, in one instance, refer to your son as your “natural born son”, and then later refer to him as your “natural born child”, have you thereby downgraded him into someone who is ineligible for inheritance as if he were an illegitimate or step-child?
Clearly not. His status has not changed by employing a more inclusive label to describe him, nor has it reassigned him out of the “sons” category and place him in the “girls” category. You blind-spot on this plain-as-day issue is astonishing.
I suspect you have a conceptual defect that causes you to conflate “a citizen of the United States” with “a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.” Those in the first group who were not members of the latter group were the only ones ineligible after ratification.
Those two groups are not the same thing. ALL NBCs are “citizens of the United States”. Attaching the label of the parent group to them did not alter the nature of the sub-group that they comprised, -the sub-group of the citizen-born.
It did not make them members of the sister sub-groups of the naturalized nor the native-but-alien-born.
It merely labeled them alternatively by the label of the parent group of the three: “Citizens” (akin to “children”, -as apposed to “sons” or “daughters” or step-child or adopted child).
Not all children (as equivalent to “citizens”) are automatically eligible to inherit from their parent’s will, but all natural children (equivalent to natural Americans) are eligible. Identical principle for both inheritance and presidential eligibility.
Since the Constitution was silent on the matter, the first Congress of founders wanted to provide some form of protection for the unalienable right of all natural American children to serve their country in every capacity, especially if they were sons of America’s best; her Ambassadors.
~ ~ ~
MichaelN wrote: “Children born off-shore to US citizen parents, are NOT Article II “natural born Citizen”s, because they do not have the high degree of allegiance which is required; i.e. they lack the REQUIRED native-birth quality.”
There are multiple errors in how you view the matter. The first is in conflating the British royal feudal plantation model of membership with American natural membership, when they are different.
By the bastardization of terminology in Britain, a “natural-born subject” is what you misconstrue as being also a natural born citizen, -by the very same criteria.
You mistakenly assume that we are still under the monarchical system, when our founders destroyed it via the treason of the revolution. It was for natural rights that they did it and justified it.
The element of native-birth was a necessity under the reign of the English dictators, but absolutely irrelevant under the freedom of Natural Law.
By it, one’s family, society and country membership was inherited from the head of the family. It was all blood-connection membership.
That is the ONLY thing that is natural. The boundaries of the King’s domain no longer determined one’s national belonging.
One belonged to their parents and they belonged to their own people and nation, along with any child they brought into the world.
Any child born of Americans was a natural born member of the new nation.
You also err is believing that the words n-b-c are a term of legal artifice which can be assigned an arbitrary meaning which includes the factor imposed by the monarchy; birth with his borders.
That is NOT an element of the words themselves, and they mean nothing more than their common language meaning. No one can possibly show that they are a term of art. That is PURE DOGMA!
One cannot underline an individual word within a phrase that is a term of legal artifice.
Such terms have a unitary meaning and the individual words cannot be singled out as John Jay singled out “born” by underlining it. That is something never done with a term of art since individual words do not necessarily carry individual meaning.
And… there was no established definition of any such term of art in America since it had no need to exist until the office of the President was created. Citizens were NOT equivalent to subjects. All who failed to understand that had the British subject disease.
~ ~ ~
All natural born citizens are born citizens.
Obama and Cruz are born citizens.
Therefore Obama and Cruz are natural born citizens.
This argument is logically invalid because it follows the form of the fallacy called affirming the consequent. Basically, the major premise only establishes that being a born citizen is a necessary condition of being a natural born citizen. It does not say it is a sufficient condition.
But then from the second premise which only contains the condition of being a born citizen, we conclude that Obama and Cruz are natural born citizens. So what we have done is conclude that they are natural born citizens from the existence of only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. So, the form of the argument is erroneous because it convents a necessary condition into a sufficient one.
~ ~ ~
a.r.nash expands: His analysis is dead-on bull’s eye. But I’d like to add to it some reinforcement.
The purpose of language modifiers is differentiation. “Born citizen” is thereby differentiated from “natural born citizen” by the addition of the modifier “natural”.
Its addition to “born citizen” is to set the new term apart from it as something distinct from it. If they were identical then it would be unnecessary and meaningless to add it.
So… with the presence of the additional modifier, an unspoken, and assumed truth accompanies the statement; “All natural born citizens are born citizens”; and that truth is “but all born citizens are not natural born citizens because “natural” adds differentiation which indicates they are not identical.”
The logical mind understands the unseen and unstated implication of the addition of “natural”, but the logic-impaired mind fails to, and is thus susceptible to the logic error Mario described.
If one innately understood that although all “A”s are “B”s, it doesn’t follow that all “B”s are “A”s, then conflating the two would not occur. For it to occur, one’s mind must be oblivious to the presence of a differentiating modifier that reveals they are different.
It’s near impossible to fix a logic-challenged mind.
~the ostrich analogy equivalent:
Post July 4th 1776;
1. American “natural born citizens” were previously American native-born subjects. (All living things that fly have wings).
2. All alien-born American children were native-born subjects. (All Ostriches have wings.)
3. Therefore alien-born American children are natural born citizens.
(Therefore ostriches can fly.)
Children of all U.S. inhabitants are born citizens.
All natural born citizens are born citizens.
Therefore all born citizens are natural born citizens.
1. All living things that fly have wings. (All U.S. born children are born citizens.)
2. All birds have wings. (All natural born children are born citizens.)
3. All living things that fly are birds. (all born citizens are natural born citizens.)
Ooops! How do you then explain bats and insects?
~ ~ ~
An advanced search of the term “natural citizen” located this from the HARVARD LAW SCHOOL LIBRARY; -THE VEST
POCKET LAWYER booklet c. 1919
418. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
419. The Constitution of the United States gives to every natural citizen, and guarantees to that citizen, political, religious, and civil rights.
420. Every NATURAL CITIZEN of the United States, is first, a citizen of the United States. ~
The use of the adjective “natural” to describe citizen is evidence of a form of citizenship which is outside of the legal realm, -pre-dating it, -existing as a natural extension of the natural realm which has (as a fundamental element of all social groups) the principle of natural membership (off-spring are the same as their parents).
In the realm of national membership we have the natural law of natural citizenship>.
By that law, all children of citizens are citizens also, just like their parents from whom they inherit their national membership.
Obama did not inherit the citizenship of his mother since, for domestic births within marriage, citizenship is inherited from the head of the family, which is the father.
NATURAL CITIZEN: a citizen-born citizen whose national membership is via inheritance, -not law.
Both obots and Apuzzians together turn a deaf ear to what truth is trying to tell them. Citizenship passes from father to child in the absence of law, -just as Vattel described. Domestic-birth is irrelevant.
a.r.nash ruminates: ~a new thought…
One enters the world as a living infant but with a certain political character invisibly attached.
That character is determined by who one’s parents are. It is inherited. It determines one’s citizenship.
Also, what they are determines what one is not.
From that standpoint, one can make an analogy of birth resulting in one of three possibilities in connection to presidential eligibility.
One is either born live, possessing the life and the political DNA of their American parents or a widowed American mother; or…
one is born adopted, -possessing the political DNA of a foreign immigrant father (via the political equivalent of a sperm-bank donor and/or egg donor with artificial insemination); or…
one is born dead, -with the political DNA of a non-immigrant foreigner who is the child of an ambassador, a hostile invader, or a guest of the U.S. government allowed in the country on a temporary Visa instead of a Green Card which makes one a member of American society.
Born Live: one is a natural born citizen by being citizen-born.
Born adopted: one is a constitutional citizen via the 14th Amendment (as construed in 1898) by being immigrant-born.
Born dead: one is an alien and not a citizen due to birth to a non-immigrant father.
That is the category in which Barack Obama was born.
(1) He was born British. uncontested.
(2) His mother’s citizenship was not transmitted by U.S. law.
(3) His father was as a temporary guest so neither father nor son were subject to the full political authority of Washington.
(4) Only those born subject (the citizen-born and the immigrant-born) are U.S. citizens.
(5) Obama Jr. was not born subject.
(6) Obama Jr. was not born a citizen.
(7) No non-citizen is a natural born citizen of the United States nor eligible to be President.
What could be clearer? It’s natural unassailable fact, and natural and national law.
I recently cut through all of the obamunist crap and exposed the foundation of their beliefs about eligibility, expounding on a fact that we’ve all been distracted from for too long, and that is that their belief is NOT that one American parent is sufficient to make a natural born citizen but that NO citizen parents are needed at all! They believe that simple jus soli alone makes a natural born citizen out of those born of pure aliens.
They base their delusion on the bastardization of English law that took place in the Calvin case when Scotsmen were declared to be natural-born subjects, …not of England but of the King who ruled both kingdoms.
After that, the terminology was corrupted in order to circumvent English law which forbid foreigners from inheriting English property.
Foreigners were declared to be natural-born subjects and therefore qualified to inherit even though they were not natural born Englishmen.
By that linguistic diversion, all focus was placed on the alien-born’s relationship to the king instead of one’s origin and relationship to the nation of England.
Their bottom line of defense is in arguing that a natural-born subject is equivalent to a natural born citizen, and a natural-born subject was anyone who was born subject to the King via birth within his domain, even though born of foreigners,… pure jus soli. No English parent needed, -not one, not two, none.
That’s what they believe and are certain is fundamental American law. Reason has no room in it, and that’s why they always resort to appealing to the status quo view held by government people, -especially lawyers and judges.
~ ~ ~
Congress has no enforcement power whatsoever. The President is charged with being the enforcer of the law. If he is corrupt them the only resolutions are impeachment, a new election, or court adjudication of unconstitutional acts, like appointments to the Board of Labor. Courts have something that Congress lacks, that that is the unwritten power of a contempt of court finding. Judges can jail anyone for contempt except perhaps the President himself. But anyone below him is fair game, including the likes of Lois Lerner and Eric Holder.
No one can resist the authority of judges to jail those who reject their orders or else the whole darn system would collapse. It is the final and ultimate authority in America because no one dares contest it. Of course you have to have honest judges who believe in the rule of law and not the rule of men, and they are rarer and rarer.
~ ~ ~
Unknown wrote: “the eligibility of native-born children of foreigners, and that of foreign-born children of citizens, have significantly different legal histories. The former has been clear and settle for a long time, while the latter is a relatively recent consensus of the American legal community.”
If that were true then I, we, would have read all about it, and yet all that exists is opinions of men of old who had a warped view of American principles; views I’ve completely exposed in recent expositions.
As for the “recent consensus” crap regarding foreign-born Americans, it was the consensus view in 1790 when the naturalization act was written, the one which declared for all of the ignorant, that American children born abroad are eligible via constitutional Art. II, Sec. I language to serve as President.
Your view of history is pathetically inaccurate. Read and learn from today’s newest exposition: FOREIGN-BORN PRESIDENTS AND THE NATIVE-BIRTH HERESY
And while there, check-out the hottest new birther exposition online: WHY OBAMA’S MOTHER NEEDED A FAKE DIVORCE.
~ ~ ~
Mario wrote: “Jay wrote “natural born citizen” and underlined the word “born” to convey that, first, the chief military commander would have to be a citizen.”
That’s ridiculous. Almost as absurd as saying the CiC had to be human. Of course he had to be a citizen. That was not even an issue in anyone’s mind. All that was up for deciding was what kind of citizen.
Hamilton had suggested he must be born a citizen. Jay might have known of that suggestion or suspected that such would be suggested by someone.
“Second, and more importantly, that citizen would not only be a “born” citizen (…hence his underlining of the word “born” for emphasis), but also a born citizen by nature.”
Doubly wrong. There was no disagreement about the choice that he must be a born citizen and not a naturalized citizen, but not all born citizens are born of American fathers since some or all States allowed jus soli citizenship for children of foreigners. How do you distinguish the two? American-born citizen and alien-born citizen?
It is not by underlining the word “born” because the ambiguity still remains.
The word “natural” eliminates the ambiguity. So why was it not underlined instead?
Your false logic cannot account for underlining the seemingly “wrong” word.
“It was only in the born citizen by nature, who was born in the United States,… who therefore satisfied the law of nation’s definition of a natural born citizen,”
You are off the deep end. The location of birth has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a non-existent “definition” of “the law of nations”. The founders could not adopt that which did not exist and could not exist since no authority existed to create it.
Natural citizenship is based solely on blood. Not borders. There are no borders in nature. There is only life, and the natural belonging that results from it. Plus, no “definition” needed to be “satisfied”. Explain why something needed to be satisfied in what Jay wrote. It’s impossible. You foolishly pretend that they were all on the same page of understanding regarding a definition that existed in neither the law of nations nor in “The Law of Nations” as penned by Vattel. He gave none, and what he did state related solely to nationality and not the as-yet-non-existent term “natural born citizen” which appeared decades later.
Lawrence B. Solum wrote: “The notion of a “natural born citizen” was likely a term of art… ” [-Or NOT! “LIKELY” CANNOT BE MORE NON-DEFINITIVE. Alternative words are “may be” “might be” “could possibly be”.]
“John McCain, born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, had citizenship conferred by statute in 1937, (but there is dispute as to whether the statute granted retroactive naturalization or whether it merely confirmed preexisting law under which McCain was an American citizen at birth.)”
His ignorance of fundamental American principles is an almost universal ignorance. McCain did NOT have citizenship conferred by statute because he was a citizen by automatic natural inheritance. All that such statutes do is to openly affirm that fact, to state it, not to create it, -not ordain it. Proclaiming or declaring or clarifying or explaining something to be a fact is not the same as mandating that from henceforth it shall become a fact by authority of the government. Explanatory statutes merely affirmed natural law that was not previously codified by Congress.
Congress has no authority over the natural children of members of the nation. It only has authority to keep the naturalization statutes of the States uniform regarding their criteria for foreigners becoming Americans.
Anyone supporting any other authority is standing in opposition to the Constitution.
Congress has and does declare the facts of citizenship in order that there be no doubt in the minds of those who administer the executive branch agencies of government dealing with those who are not natural citizens. They did that for the first time in 1790 when they protected the right of American sons born abroad to be President.
If Holy Scripture states that the sun is the center of our planetary system, does that statement make it so, or merely state a fact for the enlightenment of the uninformed? I rest my case.
~ ~ ~
Art wrote: ” The word “natural” was obviously NOT underlined because John Jay was making a point about “birth,” and the word “natural” is implied as what we are to infer from the word “born” “
That’s not correct. Jay was making no point about birth but was making a point about origin and nature.
Natural citizens acquire their predestined nationality and political character from conception, not via exit from the womb. Their natural political DNA results from parents of the same nature (same citizenship).
If they have different natures than their child will be “born” as a hybrid, -a citizen of two nations, -like a hermaphrodite of nationality; two things instead of one; -with a Siamese twin political nature.
The moment and place of birth are irrelevant. All that matters is the nature resulting from the union of the parents. Is it uniform or is it dual?
Only those with a uniform American political nature are eligible to be President.
“Natural” is not “implied” by the use of “born” or else it would not have needed to be even included.
It was needed because of the ambiguity of “born citizen”. It has no uniform meaning since some souls are born as citizens by the permission of law and not by nature.
Now for the last time, both “born citizen” and “natural citizen” are ambiguous terms until they are combined, and born is underlined.
In America, by the doctrine of citizenship equality, all citizens are natural citizens. The fiction of natural-ization turns foreigners into natural American citizens so all are equal and the same. That way there are no “alien citizens”, no “foreigner citizens”, no “citizenized citizens”
That fiction makes the term ambiguous since origin isn’t conveyed by it. But adding “born” makes it clear that only those who are born as natural citizens can be President.
And that was why Jay underlined “born”. AN
~ ~ ~
a.r.nash writes: Mario misquoted me: “You claim that Jay underlined the word “born” to inform that being born a citizen was sufficient for one to be a natural born citizen.”
No, I claimed no such thing, and I’ve never used the word “sufficient”. Your reading skills are inadequate when reading the writing of people who disagree with something you believe.
What you fail to include in your claim was the word at the heart of the issue which is “natural”.
I said that in order to be the CiC one must be born as a natural citizen.
You gigantic viewpoint problem is that you can’t conceive that natural citizenship even exists because if people are natural citizens then their national membership is via the law of nature and not via human-ascribed criteria, -which is the added unnatural factor of the recognized and registered Earth location for where a mother delivered her baby.
Please tell us what species has that as a factor in determining natural membership among its own kind?
With your “term of art” falsehood, you can claim that natural citizenship doesn’t exist and instead only human-defined citizenship exists. Thus Man becomes God. Government becomes King. Nature and Nature’s laws become squat.
Do your minor children belong to you or to the government? If they belong to you, then by what law? Government law or natural law? [with your view, I have to assume that you have no children.]
Their relationship to their father’s nation is by the same authority. Human or natural. Which is it? It cannot be both.
You have to choose whether or not Man is the property of government or government is the servant of Man.
If the latter, then natural relationships govern who and what we belong to.
I’ve just completed a new exposition titled THE AMERICAN SPARTANS vs The NEO-XERXISIANS.
Your philosophy of national membership sides with the Xerxisians and not the Freemen of Sparta. It’s what the king government decides. Natural relationships are not supreme.
~ ~ ~
Art pontificated: “…Jay’s underlining of the word “born,” because the “origin” of the birth was to be ONLY on U.S. soil and did NOT include ALSO being born on foreign soil, and the “nature” of the birth was to be from “origin” from ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, aka from parents by “natural” birth,”
Huh? “by natural birth” as apposed to Caesarian section? “ONLY on U.S. soil and did NOT include ALSO being born on foreign soil”
Only in La-La land would someone propose that John Jay and the framers had even a single tiny little thought about Americans born somewhere else and needing to be forbidden because they would have some treasonous streak inbred into them by the magic of non-American soil. The framers had not a single thought about the birth location of American-born children because that would require that they focus on the essentially non-existent occurrence of Americans giving birth somewhere other than in their own home, or town, or city, or State, or nation. They had not a single reason to even have such a thought enter their minds. Their view and focus was on Americans in America and what their political origin was.
You embrace native-birth as a semi-sacred, almost religious dogma that imparts a superior spiritual quality which the framers rejected. They only accepted that in the new nation based on Liberty and equality that there would be only one class of citizens; Natural Citizens. The hair that they split was in recognizing that now all citizens were born into it. Those who were not, were barred from the power of the Presidency.
American unity was not racially based, ethnically based, religion based, soil based or gender based. It was unity of a Natural Rights philosophy derived from the laws of Nature and the Rights of Man.
They were brothers by what they believed about the nature of Man, not by where their mother delivered them. That criterion was resorted to only for the alien-born, -not the natural born children of Americans.
It’s true that one’s home country plays a major factor in allegiance, but it is not a factor in citizenship. Citizenship is passed from generation to generation by blood.
~ ~ ~
by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com