Popular Citizenship Delusions Debunked

The neo-nativist’s damnable doctrine of human ownership and government supremacy that’s grounded in  nationalistic sentiments springing from “native soil” attachment has no place in the fundamental American principles of Freedom and Unalienable Natural Rights.

https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/foreign-born-presidents-the-native-birth-heresy1.pdf ]

a.r.nash writes:

“In Henderson v. Mayor of New York the Court held [6-1] that all immigration laws of the seaboard states were unconstitutional because they usurped the exclusive power!!! vested in Congress to regulate foreign commerce (!!!) [Human beings are indistinguishable from PRODUCTS!]

In response to Henderson, STATES abolished their Immigration Commissions and Port Authorities.  [COWARDS!!!]

The entire burden of orienting foreigners and turning away the incapacitated fell to private, philanthropic organizations.

Overwhelmed by the strain that immigration put on their resources, charity workers petitioned Congress to have the federal government assume the duties of regulating the influx…
In the 1880s Congress began to bring immigration under direct federal control for the first time.
It could no longer rely on volunteerism or informal processes to manage this powerful social force.”
Kermit L. Hall, PhD “Immigration,” The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005

~    ~    ~

No oath of office in America requires swearing allegiance to The United States. Instead they require defending and following the Constitution. You swear to it, not to the government or the nation.
The bond of all countrymen is to each other and to our Constitution, -not the government that bastardizes it every chance it gets.   AN

a.r.nash writes:

MichaelN, you need to abandon the allegiance doctrine or show where it’s found in the Constitution. Just because the royal dictators relied on it does not mean that the Americans did.
The only allegiance they embraced was to the revolution and each other. They had no allegiance to other States, and their relationship to the Union was purely self-defensive in nature, since if one was attacked, they all were threatened.

Promulgating a doctrine that is quintessentially un-American requires wandering into a political religion that has no American roots. Its roots are in the Divine Right of Kings. And we overthrew that system.
If you could, you would quotes oaths of allegiance to America, to the United States, or to the government, but you can’t because they do not exist.
All allegiance is to each other and to the Constitution. Nothing else can be trusted, and we can’t even really trust each other because a quarter or more of us are socialists willing to lie at the drop of a hat.

~    ~    ~

Everyone belongs to the society in which they are raised. It is their only world and they are a part of it. But no one belongs to the place where they were born unless that is where they were raised.

Two hundred years ago they were one and the same. Everyone was raised where they were born, so a logic error came naturally, one which conflated the two and failed to recognize the possibility of being raised somewhere else, somewhere foreign, with foreign values and foreign loyalty.

The founders were not unaware of the easy possibility of a British wife giving birth in America and then returning to Britain where she and her loyal subject husband would raise a son who was loyal to their king.
They knew that such a son could not be recognized as an American merely because of where he exited his mother’s womb. The place born and the place raised in such cases would NOT be synonymous. And that hair needed to be split, and it was for the sake of national security by employing the world “natural”.

That means by nature, and that means by blood conveyance.
The State where an alien was born might consider him to possess State citizenship. No problem. He would use State citizenship as the basis of possessing his American nationality.
But the national government had a Constitution which prevented him from being President because he was not a natural citizen of the nation.
A State might hold the view that an alien-born son as one of its natural born members but it was only one “country” of thirteen. It didn’t matter what it considered.
What mattered is who ruled the full executive and military power of all thirteen countries of the Union.

That person had to be guaranteed to possess no foreign alienage, and that was impossible to guarantee if born of an alien with foreign attachments. Hence, the term “natural born citizen” meant something different at the national level than it may have at the State level. Two different entities, only one of which determined the real meaning of n-b-c.  Being native-born was accepted by the States as a reasonable substitute for birth to natives but was not acceptable to Washington as national policy since it carried presidential eligibility implications, as well as international conflicts of sovereignty . AN

~    ~    ~

William Rawle was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania. Later, in 1825, Rawle authored, “A View of the Constitution of the United States” in which he specifically addressed national citizenship. Rawle wrote, “every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution”.

a.r.nash writes:

Rawle was a Pennsylvanian. That is equivalent to being a Virginian. Jus soli was an entrenched part of their consciousness, and that’s why he wrote with unwavering certainty regarding native-birth equaling natural born citizenship. That was his view of nationality, but it was not based on nature. Nature is: Like father, like son.

And what did the Supreme Court say in Minor? Did it express his confidence in his belief about natural belonging?
No! It said there are unresolved doubts about some of the native-born (those born of foreigners). So the dogmatic authority of Rawle was no authority at all, except in Pennsylvania. But it was true in that “Commonwealth”, -that “country” as they called it.

But what was the basis of civic participation under the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776? Only that one had a stake in society. That meant any man who paid taxes.

There was no such term as “subject” or “citizen” even used in their Constitution because all were viewed as equals. All adult male members of society could vote and be elected, even if of foreign origin, because they had a stake in everything that native-born members did. That was true equality.

Article I. That all men are born equally free, and independent; and have certain, natural, inherent, and inalienable rights;
II. That all men have a natural, and unalienable right to worship Almighty God.

It was all about Natural Law & Natural Rights. They viewed the native-born as equal and indistinguishable regardless of parentage. But that was not the view of the future central government of the nation.  It rejected presidential eligibility based solely on native-birth because that didn’t prevent loyalty to a foreign power through acculturation by a foreign father.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:

“This example more than adequately proves that, notwithstanding Justice Gray’s bold and unsubstantiated pronouncements in Wong Kim Ark regarding the English common law, there was no English common law jus soli rule of citizenship that prevailed in the United States [as national policy] after the Constitution was adopted and ratified that would have made Joseph a citizen at birth, let alone a ‘natural born citizen.’

William Rawle is not in the same league as Founder, Framer, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson.

Rawle’s is not a statement of a man that was influenced like the major Founders were by natural law and the law of nations in forming the new America.

There is no element of Lockean consent to being a member of society in what he said.

Missing from his statement is the element of parental influence over their children emanating from their duty to rear and educate their children.

He does not ascribe to the idea that children have no capacity to consent during their years of minority, and therefore follow the condition of their parents, and are not truly “free” like their parents until they reach the age of majority, a concept which is the foundation for the Founders’ political philosophy that man [upon adulthood] had the natural right to expatriate himself from the society in which he was born.

On the other hand, Wilson was steeped in natural law, believed in consent, parental influence over children, that children followed the condition of their parents, “age of reason”, [adulthood] the state of being “free” obtained at the age of majority, and the natural right to expatriate.

Rawle was not a signatory to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a major contributor to the drafting of the Constitution. Wilson was.

Rawle simply stated a conclusion without any context or support. Wilson did not.

Rawle does not have historical and legal sources which support his statement. Wilson does.

Rawle conflated and confounded being a citizen of a state with being a “natural born citizen.” For Rawle, being a citizen of a state prior to the adoption of the Constitution automatically made one a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. Wilson did not so err.

In short, Rawle missed the American Revolution and is no authority on the meaning of a “natural born citizen.” Wilson is.  ~

~    ~    ~    ~

“For your education, perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

The Notary Clause in any affidavit or statement created for the purpose of supplying a statement for a judicial proceeding reads as follows –

On this — day of —-, 2014, John doe appeared and swore that the information supplied in the foregoing instrument to be true and correct to the best of his knowledge and/or belief.

BEFORE ME…  [the signature of the affiant had to be witnessed, -whereas the “News Release” statements from the Hawaiian Dept of Health are unsigned.  No one can be held legally liable for the lies or misrepresentations they contain.]

Signature of Notary.  [Without the notary’s personal unique signature (not a rubber-stamp facsimile) the sworn statement was not certified or validated as legitimate.  A physical signature is required in every court in the world.]

“Once such an affidavit is submitted to a court of law, if it is found that the affiant knowingly gave false information to the court in the form of an affidavit, he has committed perjury as defined by every legal and layman dictionary that is written in the English Language.”  [No such affidavit from Hawaii has ever been submitted to any court of law.  No one is liable for a charge of perjury for claiming the things claimed in statements that are not legally vulnerable to perjury charges.]

~     ~     ~

Leo wrote: “The only people in US history who never had to naturalizse are children of Americans born in the US.”

If that is true as you pontificate, then you will gladly show us how exactly they were naturalized. What failure on their part would result in them not being “naturalized”? Pray tell.

PS. Your ignorance carries you like a horse, elevated above everyone else, strong and in synch with your views and beliefs.

What ignorance exactly? That regarding who John Jay was as a thinker.

He didn’t turn to anything for a definition when he underlined the word born in “natural born citizen”. That had never been done in history. Nothing explains why he did that except what I’ve discovered and written.

He did not turn to Vattel’s writing because it did not contain the words natural born citizen nor its equivalent in French.

He couldn’t not “get the quote right” because he did not quote anyone or anything. There was NO natural born citizenship in common law. There was no citizenship period.

“The Framers definition is the only one that matters.”

They did not have a definition of nbc. The English language defined it, not men, not law, not a foreign philosopher. ENGLISH defined it!
Who defines “native inhabitant, or “indigenous population”, or “natural member” or “first born son”? or “wise old man”, or “pretty young women”?  Men? or the definitions of words?

Just by using two adjectives instead of one, does that magically make a phrase into a legal “term of art” -as in artifice?  Just because the British had a similar term-of-art phrase with “natural-born subject” did not prevent the founders from employing such words to convey a very different meaning, -as is common in English which has words that are spelled the same but have different meanings, or sound the same but have the different spelling.

~    ~    ~

ajtelles interpreted Ramsay thusly:

“…and their child was born on the free soil of the independent ‘Union’ since (after) July 4, 1776.”

His sole criterion for natural citizenship was citizenship conveyance from citizen parents. Only the children of citizens inherited the citizenship claimed by the first generation of Americans through their taking the oath of allegiance to the revolution, to liberty, and to each other.

They were not all present in America in 1776, but in due time returned to the land of their nativity as citizens of their native country (State) and took the oath then.
Where their citizen children were born was irrelevant because their national membership was via inheritance, -nothing else, -no added extraneous factor included, including native-birth.

If after July of 1776,they traveled abroad after becoming citizens of their newly independent homeland, (the country/colony/ Republic/ Commonwealth/ State of their birth and upbringing) a child born to them abroad was an American by Natural Law and a recognized natural born member of the father’s country, -as would have been the children of all American ambassadors born abroad before the adoption of the Constitution, -including Thomas Jefferson (Paris) and John Adams (London).
The word “natural” is devoid of any connection to native-birth. Natural is via blood, inheritance, parentage. Native-born is via location, borders, law. No connection between the two. Two different worlds.

~     ~     ~

Confederate Constitution Article 7.) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible…”

“The Confederate authors obviously meant that ONLY a child born on the soil of a Confederate state would be considered to be a ‘natural-born citizen’ of the Confederacy…”

“There was no debate about the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen…
-the child is born to them on U.S. soil.  While we don’t know explicitly why…”

That language was confused and confusing. There is no mention of a natural born Confederate citizen being native born so none can be presumed.
The second group could have been naturalized foreigners, while the third group had to be natives of any of the States who were born before the date of secession.

“The Confederate authors obviously meant that ONLY a child born on the soil of a Confederate state would be considered to be a ‘natural-born citizen’ of the Confederacy…”

You’re mind is imagining things supported by nothing. What language supports claiming that native-birth was required? None. You are using your own self-determined definition to explain the meaning of what is actually NOT defined. That is not how arriving at a definition works.

“There was no debate about the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen…  -the child is born to them on U.S. soil…”

Again with the born on U.S. soil backed by nothing but your imagination.

You and others fail to grasp that either native-birth is the basis of natural citizenship or inheritance is the basis. Merging the two is not something that has existed anywhere at anytime. Pick one or the other. They are oil and water.

Those who fail to comprehend that natural members of a society and nation are not determined by a make-or-break factor regarding the place they left the womb, are forced to deny Natural Law and Natural Membership and assert that those American children entering the world on foreign soil are legally aliens and disallowable as citizens having an unalienable right of membership in their parents’ society and nation.
That is making man’s law God, and the Law of Nature inferior to the law of the creation (Man). That isn’t how natural and human reality works.

~     ~     ~

Parental allegiance was the deciding factor in determining whether a native-born was a subject-born.”

In theory, that is true. But in practice, it was irrelevant because the issue revolved around children of immigrants, -NOT children of invaders or foreign ambassadors.

All children of immigrants were born subject to the king, so talk of what their allegiance was or was not did not occur since it was unnecessary. Thus, in all of such cases, native-birth alone was looked at as the deciding factor, because the other factor was a “given”. Their fathers were all subject to owing “temporary allegiance”.

In the colonies, there were no foreign ambassadors, and the enemy aliens who were Indians or French, were not present in American society, so every immigrant’s son born in America was a subject of the king of England regardless of the father’s nationality even though, if British, they were also subjects because of it.

Allegiance simply was not the subject of focus when native-birth instead of descent was used as a replacement.

~     ~     ~

“Citizen of the United States” is not a separate class or set from natural citizens. Rather, it is the parent set.

NBC is a sub-set comprised of about 98% of the population. That sub-set became the only set eligible to be President when the members of the parent-set (who were NOT members of the NBC sub-set when the Constitution was adopted) had died off.

The parent set consisted of two sub-sets; 1. those born of American citizens. 2. all other citizens not born of Americans. Only those belonging to the first group can be President.  The eligible members of the other sub-set slowly shrank in numbers as they died over time. Eventually there were none left and only those in the natural born citizens sub-set remained eligible.

The second sub-set had several of its own: 1. those born in America in jus soli States of immigrant foreigners, -being viewed by their native State as a State citizen but viewed by the federal government as a foreigner born of a foreigner.

2. those born abroad as foreign subjects but naturalized. It had four sub-sets of its own. One was the foreign-born children who became Americans through their father’s naturalization. Another was his foreign wife who did likewise.

The third was his native-born children pre-dating his naturalization. The last was his children born after he became an American. Only they were eligible to serve as President. They were Americans regardless of where they were born, but their siblings (born before their father’s naturalization) were not American State citizens if not born within American territory.

~     ~     ~

a.r.nash writes:  ~possible qualifications for a newly written eligibility clause:

1. Citizen birth (born of citizens)
2. Native-birth. (NOT born of natives but born within U.S. borders.)
3. Both 1 & 2.
4. Either 1 or 2.

Only 1 is natural.

1. “No citizen except a NATURAL born citizen shall be eligible…”

2. “No citizen except a native-born citizen shall be eligible…”

3. “No citizen except a native-born, citizen-born citizen shall be eligible…”

4. “No citizen except a citizen-born citizen OR a native-born citizen shall be eligible…”

Only the first. is Natural Law.

That’s membership by blood which is the natural pattern throughout history and throughout nature. It’s PRIMAL. NATURAL. Everything else is arbitrary and artificial.

~     ~     ~

Your natural child is not someone defined by subjective preference nor by birth location.

A natural citizen was any natural child born of any citizen father, -born with his father’s nationality by inheriting his political nature.

Religion, morality, position, gender, -none of that and more was related to transmission of nationality via blood.

Like father, …like son. Every natural citizen who was white, male, Protestant, educated, intelligent, moral, and popular could serve as President. All he would need is an American father, and to meet the age and residency requirements.

American husbands all had American wives.  American parents all had American children.
All American children born of American parents were eligible to be President and possibly electable if they were as described above.

The founders never even imagined native-birth as being a necessary criterion for presidential eligibility, much less a sufficient one since every Natural Law writing from Vattel to their era understood that natural nationality was by descent. From father to son. Nature has no other added element.

That is pure unadulterated natural law. The addition of native-birth is an unnatural contaminant.
Everyone born of American parents is an American, -not by law, -not by legal fiction, but by the natural pattern of inherited character.

ajtelles said…

“After Article II Section 1 Clause 5 is amended with a definition that retains… birth on U.S. soil with two U.S. Citizen parents who are married (in 1787 America… DEFINITELY married) to each other BEFORE the child is born,..”

Subjective preferences are irrelevant and have nothing to do with natural result. Otherwise it would not be natural.

Marriage is irrelevant in nature. Only parentage and nationality matter in natural citizenship.

American parents, married or not, have no foreign alienage. A child born to them inside or outside of marriage is a natural American and a natural citizen.

Try to understand the principle involved and what it does not include. It does not include race, religion, social status, marriage, place of birth or gender. It only includes origin.

Only origin is a natural factor in natural citizenship. Any foreign origin is barred. Dual citizenship by parentage is thus unqualified.

 ~     ~     ~

thalightguy wrote:
Natural born citizens are the only persons born “citizens of the United States”.  All other persons either acquire their citizenship at birth or after…”

The word “acquire” is vitally important. Natural citizens never “acquire” citizenship because they are born being citizens by nature, while those who are alien-born do acquire citizenship at birth and are not born being citizens by nature but by law.

Their citizenship can be prevented by merely stepping over the border and giving birth on non-American soil, whereas for the natural born children of America, that factor is irrelevant.

In addition, such citizenship via legal acquisition exists in the realm of human control, since the high court could reverse the Wong decision by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment citizenship clause (which could be repealed), but nothing can prevent or negate natural citizenship since it is organic and innate and predestined from conception, -being an element of one’s political character.

So “acquired” citizenship is doubly vulnerable, -to the mother’s location when labor beings and ends in delivery, and to a change of American law.

That form of citizenship is not natural because it is not derived from a natural relationship, a blood relationship with parents who are members of the nation. Instead it is the result of a legal mandate that produces a legal relationship and legal citizenship.  But no legal citizen, merely because of where they were born, is eligible to be President.

Natural citizens are born like healthy babies with pure American blood, but legal citizens are born like babies with HIV. HIV is not a natural element of babies. It is acquired, it is added to them and they are born with it just like Wong citizens are born with acquired citizenship. Even though U.S. citizenship is in their political blood, that does not make it part of their political nature. It can also be compared to being born infected with foreign alienage via one or two alien parents.

~     ~     ~

It seems to me that Mario’s concept of alienage is inaccurate although logically valid. He equates it to some invisible cloak that law removes. That is a concept that one can imagine but is not based on reality.

Alienage can never be removed and need not be removed in order to become a citizen by law. Government can naturalize foreigners regardless of anything, including their prior citizenship which has not been renounced to their own government.

The foreign ties with which foreigners were born and raised are with them forever, and children born to them are inculcated with those ties and values by their immigrant parents and relatives who may raise them in the consciousness of their foreign homeland.

It is because of those ties, those bonds, that no naturalized citizen nor an alien-born citizen is allowed to be President. There must be no direct bonds from birth to any foreign land. Only American roots or American bonds are allowed.

When the naturalization oath was personal and individual, it meant the severing of those old attachments by one’s sacred vow to America and her Constitution.

Children born to such Americans are presumed to be free of alienage because of the solemn vow of Renunciation. So they are treated as natural born citizens even though their parents have no American roots of their own.

~     ~     ~

re-quoting thalightguy wrote again:
“Natural born citizens are the only persons born “citizens of the United States”. All other persons either acquire their citizenship at birth or after from the U.S. Constitution, the uniform Rule of Naturalization,..”

This statement overlooks what needs to be parsed. And that is the reality that for almost a century after July 4, 1776, all original citizenship was State citizenship. Immigrant-fathered people born in States honoring native-birth as a basis of citizenship were born as citizens, and their State citizenship made them, by extension, citizens of the nation also.

So by the State supremacy over citizenship and immigration, both the jus sanguinis natural citizen children and the jus soli born children were both born as citizens of the united States because there was no federal provision to not recognize the American nationality of alien-fathered children.  Nor was there one to recognize them.

That was why there were “doubts”, as mentioned in Minor, since some States might no longer have allowed jus soli citizenship as they all had previously done before the revolution.

Wong resolved those doubts (being extrapolated to all other immigrant parents) and their domestically born off-spring.
But it did not create new doubt about the actual nature of such alien-fathered citizens by conflating them with natural born citizen children of American parents.

a.r.nash writes:

Out of linguistic convenience, we abuse the word “naturalization” and illegitimately expand its application to situations which are actually not naturalization.

The only real actual naturalization is that which comes about by the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation.
The children of naturalized parents are not citizens by naturalization but by statutes that honor jus sanguinis. The children of foreigners become Americans because they became children of Americans. From the parents to their young. their new nationality is passed by blood connection.  When the father’s “political blood” changed, so did that of his family, keeping uniformity within the family unit per the principle of Nature and the policy of the federal government.

Those born of foreigners who have not become Americans should not be described as “naturalized at birth”, but as something else because US citizenship does not result from either parent taking the oath.  A reasonable term is “common law citizens born with citizenship granted by law”.  You could say they are citizen-ized at birth.

If born abroad having only one American parent, a dual-nationality child can be labeled a statutory citizen. And those born in the U.S. are constitutional citizens or 14th Amendment citizens, or WKA citizens, or common law citizen but neither should be called “naturalized at birth” although both groups can be called legal citizens.
Law has no application to natural citizenship because there is nothing legal about blood connections and nothing natural about man-made law.

Real naturalization is only something that is personal and by one’s own volition. It is not something that happens to one without one’s consent or knowledge.
Were that not literally true, then North Korea could “naturalize” anyone that steps foot on PRK soil.
Would you ever agree that people so “naturalized” were in reality naturalized according to what real naturalization is?

To repeat myself, the 14th Amendment was misconstrued by the Supreme Court but its accepted effect was not to naturalize alien-born children, but to citizen-ize them at birth.  But there’s a complication; all citizens are recognized as “natural citizens” and none are viewed as “alien-born citizens”.  So in that sense, the alien-born babies of legal immigrants are natural-ized (by American doctrine) to be natural citizens even though they are not such by nature.  So they can logically be called “natural-ized at birth” by doctrine but not naturalized-at-birth by law or process or oath.

My complaint about the sloppy use of the term is that it should only apply to the process of becoming an American citizen by one’s own choice, and being thus made, by fiction of law, into a new natural citizen like all of the rest of the American people.  But being a natural citizen by a fiction of law is not the same as being a natural citizen by birth.

One must be born as a natural citizen in order to be eligible to be President, and that was the reason that John Jay underlined the word.

Blogger Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:

“There you go again with your contradictions. By your answer to me, I can see that you are, indeed, a denier of naturalization at birth.  Your North Korea example is as nonsensical as so much of what you write. [!]

Your expression, “a natural citizen by a fiction of law” finds no basis in any decision of the United States Supreme Court.

[it pre-dates the existence of the court, the government, and the Constitution.  The fiction is that an outsider or his native-born child is a natural member of the nation and thus imbued with all of the rights of natural members.  That undoubtedly traces far, far back into British history. The problem is that you can’t find a discussion of it anywhere (but it must exist somewhere).  You have to deduce its meaning from its word origin, and the Anglo-American principle of Equality of all Subject / Citizens.]

Your point about why John Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural born citizen” proves nothing.

The clause “natural born citizen” already tells us that one must be “born a natural citizen in order to be eligible to be President.”

[how stupid!  It tells us that by the inclusion of the word “born” as apposed to “made”.  In British common law commentary, the two were distinguished by logic even though there was no distinction by language since all were labeled “natural-born subjects”, -even naturalized foreigners.  So the point was made by insightful authorities that “a subject born” is not the same as “a subject made”.

Worst still, he response is in complete contradiction to his own doctrine!!!  He stands on the hard position that the nbc term is not self-explanatory and so it cannot “tell us” anything.  He claims without any justification or verification whatsoever that the term is a legal term-of-art (as in artifice) -an artificial creation of the legal system which alone defines what the complete term means, -ignoring the English language meaning of the individual words.  So he inadvertently showed that when it suits him, he’ll attempt to have it both ways.  He inconsistently support my position against his own since I argue that no one can claim nor show that nbc is a term of art in America even though it definitely was in the form of “natural-born subject” -hyphen required.]

“Jay did not have to underline the word “born” to convey that.

[Jay had to underline “born” to high-light the difference between the words “natural born citizen” and the unitary term-of-art phrase “natural-born subject” to prevent one from assuming that he used those words in an equivalent manner to the British phrase.  That was to make clear that being a “natural citizen” would be insufficient since that term was ambiguous  due to the doctrine that all citizens are natural citizens.  One must be born a natural citizen, -not made one.]

In any event, there are natural born citizens and law born citizens.

Hence, underlying born proves nothing. You are just making stuff up as you always do.”

So… if Mario is not the one “making stuff up” then it is pure crap and cannot possible be true since all truth comes from his insightful and penetrating omniscient mind.  That response of his makes it quite plain that Mario resents lacking any explanation at all for why John Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural born citizen” when writing to General Washington to urge him to allow no one else to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

Like everything that Mario’s dogma can’t explain, he simply dismisses it as a mistake or irrelevant or made up.  IOW, John Jay, President of the Continental Congress, and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was a man given to stupidly writing things that didn’t need to be written because Mario would understand what he reeeeally meant to say and therefore he needn’t have written it with an underline… over two hundred years ago!  Judge for yourself where the stupidity lies.

~     ~     ~

U.S. government website:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen…

It should have been worded with this presumption in favor of the description of the 1790 Act:
“It has never been determined definitively that a person born abroad to U.S. citizens is not a natural-born citizen…” THAT is the proper slant. Its opposite is groundless.

~     ~     ~

Ray said to me: “You jest – If foreign born children of US citizens where in fact “natural born citizens” there would have been no need for the 1790 statute!”

Dear Ray, where the hell have you been for the last month? I’ve explained multiple times what the reason was. They were ONLY mentioned in order to protect and declare their natural birthright as Americans to serve their nation in every capacity, including, and particularly, as President.

Their mention was NOT an exercise of non-existent Congressional authority to declare “aliens” to be natural born American citizens.

It was instead entirely a declaration of natural fact so that people possessed of the dogma that grips your mistaken mind would not take the attitude that you take. -An attitude that greatly denigrates the breadth of what is included in the high privilege of American CITIZENSHIP as it relates to ones own children.

What is included is the natural RIGHT, as mentioned by Vattel (in The Law of Nations) of citizen fathers to pass their membership to their sons and daughters.

Now here you are proclaiming that Vattel, whom you honor, was full of crap, -that American fathers have no such right and are merely subjects of the STATE and will take whatever it is willing to allow them.

Understand this: No founding father, no framer nor ratifier of the Constitution, would have taken their natural right to pass their national membership to their children and given it away to any government, -including the one they were creating to serve them and their kinsmen.
They were not like Esau who frivolously give up his birthright to Jacob.
They would have considered any man holding your view to be a traitor to American principles and to their Natural Rights as freemen of a free country.

You need to stop viewing government as god!

~    ~    ~

thalightguy said…Mario, You wrote, “A law born citizen of the United States is any child who by the Fourteenth Amendment (aided by an Act of Congress which is 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a))….” [an aggregation (for the sake of simplicity) of nationality rules, statutes, and court opinion results]

I humbly point out, 8 U.S.C is not an Act of Congress. (8 U.S.C is merely non-positive law.)

SEE: http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml “There are currently 26 positive law titles in the Code. Those titles are identified with an asterisk on the Search & Browse page”; and http://uscode.house.gov/browse/&edition=prelim “Title 8 does not have an asterisk”

~     ~     ~

Mario’s theory of citizenship is like a golden orb. It seems very solid and precious. But it consists of two halves. One half is his understanding that natural citizenship flows from parents to children, with their membership in their society and national family being their natural inheritance.

That half of his view is golden, pure, real, and solid. The problem is the other half. It consists of the invented view that the irrelevant factor of where one’s mother’s womb was located during the brief and inconsequential moment when they exited it is also vitally important to whether or not one can belong to their natural national family.

In other words, the earth location of a brief event in space and time determines who and what they are for the rest of their lives merely because that brief event happened to be the occasion of their entrance into the world.

That event had nothing whatsoever to do with organic nature because that event is defined not by its origin but its location, -as was the case under the dictatorship of English common law nationality rules.

Their system of human ownership was overthrown and rejected by the self-liberated Americans who only recognized the kinship of blood to be the basis of naturally belonging to their parents’ country.

But Mario, and others before him, going all of the way back to the mind-set of the Loyalists and the system by which they were indoctrinated, returns to the vomit of the royal dictatorship by embracing the King’s criterion for national membership; i.e., -the birth event occurring within the nation’s borders.

That half of Mario’s golden orb of citizenship theory is not Gold, but is pyrite. Fools gold, and only fools willingly embrace it because it is the antithesis of the natural principles on which American freedom and independence are based.

A. Nash writes:

It’s great when Mario puts Unknown in his place, and equally great when Unknown does the same to Mario, as with this:
Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:

“Hence, Congress surely then also has the power to consider such children no longer ‘natural born citizens,’ which is what it specifically did starting in 1795 and so continuing to today.”

Unknown replied: Then you should be able to cite Congress saying specifically that they are no longer natural-born citizens. You cannot, because you, and not I, are the one inventing stuff.

Yes, Mario is quite the inventor. He has to be to try to make his Earth-centered solar system-like theory credible. So much to explain that can’t be explained.

But that goes for Unknown as well. He proffers that consensus opinion says that any one with citizenship from birth is a natural citizen by birth. Well, that is asinine on its face because of the word “natural”.

My problem is that both sides invent and embrace the baseless falsehood that the words “natural born citizen” are a term of legal artifice and can therefore be defined anyway their dogma desires.

With that as their basic mind-set, you can’t convince the Kool-aid drinkers on either side that they are both wrong.
All that is real is natural citizenship. Everything else is the invented fiction of clever minds operating under bias blindness while worshiping at the competing alters of Consensus Opinion or Positive Law.

~     ~     ~

Mario wrote: “At that time there was neither a United States nor citizens thereof, both necessary conditions for the creation of a natural born citizen.”

Mario, as I’ve explained to you more than once, you are reading words that do not exist. You are imagining the words that you have planted in everyone’s mind when they have never existed, and those words are; “natural born citizen of the United States“.

For once, get off of your soapbox and explain where those final four words are located.

The founders & framers used no such term, and yet you keep insisting that a phrase that they never used was a phrase that they did use.  That shows how bent your thinking is when it comes to the issue of citizenship.  You see what your dogma bias wants you to see.  If you don’t see it then you just imagine that you do.  How can someone’s viewpoint be trusted when they have such a major problem with simple facts?

Understand this: they NEVER connected being born a natural citizen with the constitutional union of the STATES.

With the exception of Hamilton and such, they were ALL natural born citizens of their home country, -the colony / state / republic where they were born and raised.

That made all who were so born eligible to be President as natural born citizens. That term absolutely referred to themselves.

They were subjects of the Crown but also citizens of their home country, all of which were successful attempts at self-governance and self-reliance (the two characteristics of societies of citizens). They had elections, they voted, they served on juries, on grand juries, in militias, held elected and appointed offices, etc.

No one with a brain can claim that they were not born as natural citizens and yet Mario does. The big fat error enters when one conceives that the word “citizen” MUST be connected to the words “of the United States”. That is absolutely a false idea.

Before the Constitution’s ratification, they were all citizens of the Union of sovereign American Republics, or the federation of American STATES (or united States); -after ratification they were also citizens of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA as U.S. Nationals. (two completely different meanings).  Just look at the writing of the heading of the Declaration of Independence.  The word “united” is not capitalized and it is about one-fifth the height of the word “STATES”.  It was an adjective in 1776, -not a part of the title of a nation that did not exist yet.


~     ~     ~

From ‘Our Constitution and Government

Professor of Political Science and Public Administration Graduate School,  The American University

(Second Reprinted Edition)

The American’s Creed

I believe in the United States as a Government of the People, by the People, for the People; whose just Powers are Derived from the Consent of the Governed; A Democracy in a Republic; A Sovereign Nation of many Sovereign States; A Perfect Union, One and inseparable; Established upon those Principles of Freedom, Equality, Justice, and Humanity for which American Patriots Sacrificed their Lives and Fortunes.

I Therefore Believe it is My Duty to My Country to Love it; to support its Constitution; to Obey its Laws, to Respect its Flag; and to defend it Against All Enemies.
William Tyler Page” (Page 308.)

~     ~     ~

Chris Farrell wrote:  If the two US Supreme Court justices, Kagan and Sotomayor, do not recuse themselves from participation in any cases relating to Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president then American citizens would be justified in taking to arms. Such a conflict of interest should not be overlooked or tolerated.

If Mr. Obama is determined to have fraudulently represented himself as constitutionally eligible to be president while knowingly not so, then he has criminally usurped the office of the presidency by fraud and attempted to cover-up his crime by forgery and America is in the midst of a constitutional crisis of unparalleled magnitude: America presently has no legal sitting president for Obama was illegally elected while in the commission of a crime.

Sotomayor and Kagan were illegally appointed by a criminal in the commission of a crime. They must not be permitted to participate in any case having to do with Mr. Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah’s eligibility to be president for the conflict of interest could not be greater. Their appointments to the Supreme Court would necessarily have to be retroactively abrogated–effectively annulled–as having taken place in the commission of a crime.

Conservatives must not cede this hour to darkness and instead take to heart the words of King Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings:

A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends, and break all bonds of fellowship, -but it is not this day!

An hour of woe, and shattered shields, when the Age of Men comes crashing down, -but it is not this day!

This day we fight!

By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!

Read more at http://allenbwest.com/2014/03/rallying-cry-need-stand-men-west/#KSzxavfa2IvJmqE0.99



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”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: