Sovereignty & Citizenship Pt. 2: Rejected Opposites  Sovereignty & Citizenship; Jurisdiction &; Corruption of Blood


The Constitution limits eligibility to be President to only “natural born citizens“.  If “natural born citizens” exist, then “citizens” certainly must exist.  If “natural born citizens” exist, then “born citizens” must also exist.  And if natural born citizens exist, then “natural citizens” must exist as well.

And while both latter types are members of the first group (citizens) they exist by separate definitions even though their members may overlap perhaps 98%.  In fact, that is exactly the situation.

Using the rough guessimate of 98%, we can say that 98% of born citizens are born in America and also that 98% of natural citizens are also born in America.  Clearly, there’s a heck of a lot of overlap.

The 2% of natural citizens not born in America were born abroad of citizen parents, while the 2 % of the born citizens not born in America were those same natural citizens.  But there were two other groups that need to be recognized as well.  They were not distinguished by where they were born, but by the fathers they were born to.  American?  -or foreign?

Most births were to American fathers, but 2% or so were to foreign fathers (immigrants).  Most of the people of America were Americans, but 2% or so were foreigners.  They had children.  Their children were perhaps 2% of all births.  They were deemed to be Americans by the perennial British common law policy of citizenship following native birth.  But that policy had nothing whatsoever to do with the 98% of children who were not born of foreigners but of American fathers.

Their citizenship was not dependent in any way on the British common law policy created to deal with foreigners to Britain, -and, by colonial adoption, foreigners to America.  They had their citizenship passed to them from their American fathers automatically, -without the need of any law or government policy.

It was the same as their membership in their own family.  Identical situation.  No law.  None needed because human society automatically follows the natural law of belonging.  No one questioned whether or not a man’s children belonged to him, or whether or not his children belonged to his people, his country, or his nation as well.

On a fundamental level, it springs from human ownership rights.  Humans own themselves, and they own that which belongs to them, whether inanimate or animate.  Whether non-living or living.  A man owns himself and his wife.  A wife owns herself and her husband.  Both own their children.  Whatever belongs to them also belongs to the group to which they belong.

That group could be any group involving the entire family, including clans, tribes, countries and nations.  The entire family is one unit.  Either the unit belongs to one particular group or it belongs to another.  The children of a man cannot belong to only a group to which he himself has no connection.  Correction: make that “could not belong”; past tense.

In the world in which America was founded, the man was the head of the family.  He alone bore the responsibility before society for his family.  His whole identify was formed around his responsibility to provide for it as its head.

It was dependent on him and it was a part of him.  They all took after him, beginning with his wife who took his name and nationality, and swore obedience to him, -continuing with his children who bore his name and were natural new members of his society and nation.

But there exists, and has always existed going back perhaps 1,000 years to the successful Norman invasion of England, a countering force that has predominated in the mother country of Britain, -which determined nationality based not on one’s blood relationship but on the location that one’s mother was situated in when giving birth.  If it was within the King’s borders, then the child belonged to him as his subject.

That policy resulted in an entire doctrine of nationality that was fabricated to support it and rationalize it.  It was the “law of the land” in both Britain and the colonies.  Even after the revolution, it prevailed for children of foreign immigrants who had no blood connection to the Americans whom they chose to live among.

Their State citizenship from birth was simply accepted as the traditional American way and it functioned almost perfectly for the job of assigning nationality to everyone since essentially everyone was born within American borders.

With such an overwhelming prevalence of the tradition of native-birth guaranteeing citizenship, it ignorantly came to be assumed that it was the operating principle of nationality assignment in America. And yet the truth was something else, something over-looked and forgotten almost for centuries in the British world.

It didn’t really matter at all since everyone was deemed to be a citizen regardless of the ignorance of fundamental principles.  They all saw that everyone was born in America and was a citizen, ergo; they were citizens because, as in Britain, they were born in-country.

That was the accepted custom and previous British common law that continued on in America, but what they failed to grasp was that the principle of natural membership still existed, natural relationships still existed, and natural rights still existed.

So even though common law seemed to be the floor on which American nationality policy was based, there still remains an immutable, everlasting sub-floor beneath it. And it was more than just a floor.  It was and is the bedrock foundation of the nationality house.  Just because no one has ever seen the foundation does not mean it does not exist, nor that it is not the foundation that it is.

So it is with natural national membership in the unnatural nations born as colonies of original nations.  Its house’s foundation has been built atop with a new floor of colonial rule and common law native-birth membership instead of natural blood membership.

But no one can even remember blood membership ever existing, so it is assumed that it is not an operative force in national nationality assignment.  That is greatly reinforced by the fact that 98% of the natural citizens are born in-country, so there is no reason to even think about the issue.  Except for the office of the President of the United States.  A minor trifle.

But in presumed jus soli nations such as the U.S. and Canada, if you removed the 98% of the population who were born of citizens, and only had the 2% or so born of foreigners, then you would have a true jus soli nation because everyone remaining in the country would be 100% dependent on where they were born since they were born of foreigners and not Americans.  But would any of them be natural born citizens and constitutionally eligible to be President?  That is what we will find out.

To illustrate the confused situation, I have a new analogy; The Great Shoe Analogy.

The shoe of American nationality law & policy practices is inhabited by the foot of American lawyers, judges, and law makers.  They and the shoe are a perfect fit.  Who would question that the foot & shoe are made for each other?  No one, because of that nice perfect fit that is so comfortable and well broken-in.

The foot looks at its home, like a clam in its shell, and knows with no doubt that the sole of the shoe is the foundation of the shoe and the ground on which the foot rests.  That is clearly unquestionable.  It’s right there!  The sole is the basis of the foot’s world.  The toes are very familiar with it and it is very well known to all parts of the bottom of the foot.

It is an enclosed, finite environment that is self-contained.  No law or doctrine from the outside has any room within the shoe.  The foot fills it completely, and accepts fully the laws & policy practices of the shoe.

But something is missing from this picture, something that the foot cannot see. Have you guessed what it is?  It is the outer sole.  That sole is the real sole that is the foundation of the shoe, -not the inner soul which only provided comfort and an orderly fit, not protection.

The outer sole is the real basis of the shoes existence because without it the shoe would be impractical, just as would be a nation in which no one was related to anyone else.  No natural citizens.  Everyone foreigners from different foreign countries.  What kind of successful country would that make?

It’s the same with a shoe with only an inner sole and no outer sole.  It would fall apart just like a similar country.  In fact, one did.  Yugoslavia.  It existed all of my life, and then it began to break into pieces as communism was overthrown and the unifying force of the Soviet Union collapsed.

So the outer sole of national membership via natural connections is the true sole of the nation and it could not long exist without it.  It underlies the inner sole of jus soli doctrine, policy, and court opinion.  It is just right there beneath it, but the foot has never seen it, ever.  It is hidden, just as the fundamental unwritten law of blood connection is also unseen and unrecognized.

The tradition of native-birth guaranteeing citizenship seems permanent and secure, and yet it is temporal and insecure.  It is based purely on a court opinion about how the common law tradition was so pervasive in America that it has to be deemed to be something that it never was: federal policy. Policy and opinions can change with time, -and native-birth as a nationality criterion could go the way of the Doo-doo bird.  It is not guaranteed.

But membership by blood connection is forever guaranteed, not going back a 1,000 years but  perhaps 200 million years or more to when the first creatures on earth to form families also formed larger groups of related kin, like elephants and all herd animals, pack animals, pride animals, flock animals, school animals, etc.  Membership in natural groups, including humans, is based on the law of natural membership which is due to their blood relationship.

Warning: Be very wary of the neo-nativists who preach another doctrine of national membership.  They are the neo-imperialist American heretics who proclaim a nationality doctrine that includes the side-effect that your children do not naturally belong to you & yours (your country) but to some government since government alone has the authority to permit them to be members of the group to which you belong, -the American group, or…if born abroad, to the foreign group (nation) under a foreign government.  Many seemingly intelligent people are afflicted with that view but without knowing it.

How could the government have such authority unless it had full rights over them? Not necessarily actual ownership rights but gate-keeper rights. That means that it can impose itself between the returning American parents and their children and declare the children to be aliens if not born within the King’s borders.  Oops!  I mean the U.S. borders.  They would thus be authorized to bar their entrance to their parents’ homeland.  Under that doctrine of State supremacy you would find that:

No natural rights are held by you or your children.  You are not a sovereign American citizen but are instead a dependent American citizen and the government is the Sovereign; (-the new substitute for the rejected British King) and you are nothing more than its subject.

That “reality” is based on a wholly fictitious and non-existent authority of Congress which they falsely declare to be as powerful and unlimited in its authority over nationality as Britain’s Parliament, -which had no written Constitution to rein it in and limit its authority.  It could, for the right price, make a wealthy or aristocratic foreigner into a “natural-born subject” of the nation via a bill of legislation written specifically for him.

Congress has in fact no such authority, -but don’t tell them that; -they don’t want to hear it.  HAIL CONGRESS!  ALL POWER TO CONGRESS!  ALMIGHTY CONGRESS!  ALL IT DECLARES IS LAW! -even if it has no basis whatsoever in constitutional authority.

They have an inherently schizophrenic view about the very basis of citizenship because their doctrine is built on a false foundation.  They hold that Congress possesses both the authority to declare your foreign-born child to be an American by its law-making authority, or to not be an American at all but an alien, -or to be a natural born citizen and thus eligible constitutionally to be President.

Wow!  What an unlimitled, broad range of authority Congress has!  Only where would it get such authority since it is not given in the Constitution?  It comes from nowhere other than imagination and aristocratic elitist pride.

The first Congress ever, composed of founders & framers of the Constitution, declared that foreign-born American children were to be understood to be not just American citizens but “natural born citizens” -using the term that only applies to presidential eligibility and nothing else.

They, the authors of the Bill of RIGHTS viewed American children as naturally American and not American by the say-so of some people in congress who had no authority to deem them to be aliens.

Their first Naturalization Act (1790) stated that they are to be recognized as what they are. It did so right after ordering that the children of men who had become Americans via naturalization were to be recognized as “citizens of the United States”.  They could have done what later, un-conscientious Congresses did, and simply call them both that.  But they did not do that.  They deliberately chose to mandate that they be recognized as the type of citizen that is eligible to be President.

Why say that?  Because under the rejected British common law, British children born abroad, following its doctrine, were subjects of the monarch of that foreign realm and not natural born subjects of Britain, -with one exception; “the children of the King” -meaning the children of the King and his Ambassadors who, it was pretended, were actually born on “British soil”, even though it was really foreign.

Hey!  Pretending is easy!  Just make like everything in your Earth-centered-universe theory is correct, and people will buy it, -especially if you are their Lord & Master, His Royal Imperial Highness!

The government & courts were forced to take that position because they were claiming as subjects the native-born children of fathers still subject to their own foreign king.  They couldn’t forever have their cake and eat it too, so either their own children were aliens or the immigrants’ children were aliens, -but they had declared them to NOT be aliens but natural-born subjects.  Thus they painted themselves into a corner, and the losers were foreign-born British children.  Eventually they “fixed” that problem by declaring them also to be natural-born subjects by the unlimited power of Parliament.

If America did the same thing, which the whole government believes it did, that would mean that Congress possesses unlimited Power like Parliament, and that your American children, the children of all Americans born while their parents were traveling, living, working, or studying abroad, would be aliens.  That today is still the warped, ignorant, and monarchical view of essentially all American immigration attorneys, and legal scholars, -as well as judges, -the entire legal establishment that only considers almighty precedent, -not reality or the Constitution as written.

What difference does it make if we shadow, or imitate what the British did in regard to their foreign-born children?  What possible down-side could there be?  After all, they are deemed by congressional statute (so the view goes) to be U.S. citizens just like all of the rest?  Well, America has something that Britain never had, nor ever will have; and that is an elected Commander-in-Chief of all national military forces; -the President of the United States.

How is that related?  By the fact that he can’t be just “a citizen of the United States”.  He MUST be a “natural born citizen”.  If he, though he be the son of a President who was also the son of a President, was not born within American borders, according to their doctrine, then he cannot be a natural born citizen, -regardless of the fact that those who would know more than anyone else, declared that he would be.  How the heck could they, the founders of our nation, be wrong???

“Well, -they just made a dumb mistake…heck everyone can make a dumb mistake… don’t over-think it,… -better still, try to under-think it”.

So the situation is that either the first and most faithful-to-the-constitution-ever Congress was composed of idiots, and President Washington was just like them since he signed it, or… those who declare them all to be wrong are the idiots.  There are no other possibilities.

Their first mistake is assuming that Congress, by its non-existent authority, made them into natural born citizens by requiring that they be viewed as such, and then compound it by assuming that that was a mistake which was “corrected” by the third Congress in 1795 when it labeled them “citizens of the United States”, and dropped the reference to presidential eligibility (natural born).

Consider the paradox of such a position; aliens, foreigners, are the diametric opposite of natural born citizens.  By no stretch of any imagination could aliens ever be considered natural born citizens, and vice versa.  So how does any correct and rational doctrine explain them being turned from the one into its polar opposite?  It’s an impossibility!

Either they truly were aliens by the nationality principles of the American Revolution, or they really were natural born citizens by those principles.  America does not have two different sets of nationality principles or membership rights.

Ah! but it does.  One was the custom brought over into the colonies from the very beginning, and continued by the States; allowing native-born aliens to be accepted as being subject born; -born as subjects; -or born citizens.  The States valued immigration highly since it increased their population and thus their representation in Congress, along with general growth and prosperity.

Which States were most concerned about their representation in Congress?  The Slave States.  If their numbers were not a majority in at least one of the houses of Congress, they had no security that slavery might not be badly affected by legislation.

It was imperative to their way of life that slavery be protected.  So native-birth citizenship would not have been seen as something to end since it was quite appealing to potential immigrants.

Bear in mind, that all naturalization was conducted by the States, making State citizens who in turn were considered “American citizens” only by extension, although when the federal courts were established, they also could naturalize foreigners if they offered a court-of-record service to the public.

So the States had their nationality laws & customs while the national government had an entirely different set of concerns.  And they revolved around the issue of sovereignty.

National sovereignty.   America’s versus Britain’s and other government’s.  Which nation had a rightful claim over people who did not remain in the nation where they were born but traveled and even emigrated abroad, and had children while doing so?

There were only two possible approaches to dealing with that question, and they were: policy, -or principle.  Nature? -or doctrine of man?  National Law? -or Nature’s Law?

America’s founders chose Natural Law because only in it were found fundamental Natural Rights, -rights that went beyond those secured in Britain against the unlimited power of the Monarch.

In relationship to America, the very nation of Britain, through Parliament, became the new autocratic unbridled monarchical power that passed law after law that destroyed American liberty piece by piece.  They felt that they had the God-given right to do so since they believed in the unquestionable absolute sovereignty of Britain over all of her foreign territories, regardless of how self-governing they had always been, and self-sustaining as well.

Their pride and nationalism did not allow for ceding any of their sovereignty to the Americans because there was no discernible line at which both sides would harmoniously agree.  Any dispute could not be settled since there was no referee to judge which side held the power over issues involving over-lapping jurisdiction.

So it came to be, and was, a situation, (as the Americans slowly came to realize), of all or nothing.  No shared authority.  Full national self-governance or full subservience to Britain.  There was no middle ground that the British would accept, so everyone had to choose which side they were on.

Many Americans chose the side of their mighty British Empire, preferring its pride & power as a parent country (with the “small price” of their subservience), over the alternative of American Independence & Liberty at the higher price of their insecurity and separation from the mother empire, (-along with warring against it and being warred upon by it).

The Loyalists were viewed as traitors to individual liberty and self-governance while the patriots were viewed as traitors to the Empire & Crown and insurrectionist rebellious mutineers.  Everyone was a traitor.

But the reasons were primal in nature; a desire for independence, for cutting the apron strings, -the umbilical cord, -being weaned and leaving the nest, compared to instead retaining all ties like a dependent child or a proud co-conspirator in the empire-building suppression of indigenous peoples everywhere that the King’s imperial forces planted the King’s flag.

The problem was that the colonists were not indigenous people, were not primitive savages, but were every bit as modern and educated and intelligent as the aristocratic powers ruling in Britain, and far more insightful regarding the liberty that the British enjoyed from tyrannical kings, -since they were the ones not enjoying that liberty any longer once the French & Indian War had finally ended and Britain set about to force the colonist to pay for its cost to the British treasury.

The royal charters that the colonies were founded on did not allow such injection of repressive foreign power into the personal and political lives of the inhabitants of America.  Britain was the real rebel and traitor to its own legal charter agreements which involved the Monarch only.

Both sides realized that with the stances each had, there was no way to back down and not suffer significant loss of either liberty or power. “Reduced to utter servitude.”  One side or the other had to be in possession of total sovereignty since Britain had not yet learned the lesson of rebellion and defeat that its own pride could and would exact within the membership of its empire if it refused to share sovereignty with its far-flung parts.

Sovereignty became everything as the Americans slowly realized that Britain would not relent from its dictatorial attitude toward them and share sovereignty with them so they could continue to be self-governed as they had always been.

Dual Sovereignty became nothing more than a pipe-dream as its proponents lost the ideological high-ground to British intransigence.  It was full American sovereignty or slavery.  Liberty or death.  That attitude was rooted in the Americans’ awareness of fundamental human rights, natural rights that were mankind’s from the will and gift of a Deity that formed Man as a finite version of his own autonomous self.

Americans Had Rights.  And the British were ignoring and rejecting that fact so there was no ground for compromise.  The British took a high & mighty attitude of “all or nothing” and the Americans were willing to oblige giving them nothing in return, -taking 100% of Britain’s sovereignty over them and claiming it for themselves, -for all of The People of America with none left for the British, especially its King.

Every American citizen shared in that sovereignty, that power of ownership, as in self-ownership.  Every freeman was a co-sovereign.  Their individual share of sovereignty was their portion of the natural rights that they all possessed as liberated people who were no longer subject to a distant, dictatorial power that they were required to bow down to.

In victory, Americans had to bow to no foreign sovereign because they were fellow sovereigns to all of the kings of the world.  Kings do not obsequiously bow to each other.  But British subjects sure as hell had to or they’d suffer the painful consequences of not doing so.

Sovereign American citizens had secured rights for themselves at a high price and were not going to tolerate the abrogation of them ever again.  They were not going to share their sovereignty with foreign dictators because that would entail surrendering a portion of their liberty and natural rights, including the absolute right of jurisdiction over their own children.

The free Americans did not respect the self-serving claims of monarchies of possessing the right of sovereignty over all children born within their borders.  The only sovereignty over an American father’s children was himself. They belonged solely to him and not to a royal head of state.

Since they belonged solely to him and were of him, they also belonged solely to his nation and were of it as well because the only connection that men with rights respected was the connection of blood, -not the insignificant location of a mother’s womb during the brief event when a child exited it.  No so for the British.  That fleeting moment, to their royal doctrine, carried with it the inescapable consequence of being the property of the Crown for life!

The British doctrine of sovereignty had developed, due to the writings of a Chief Justice of their high court (Lord Coke), into including the claim that since one was born subject to the ruler appointed by heavenly authority, that one was tied to him for life, an everlasting bond of obedience was owed, and subjecthood was thus inescapable in this lifetime.

That was the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.  It was pure poison to every freedom-loving American.  Anathema.  Rejected utterly.  Not rejecting it would mean that they would have to remain obedient to Britain no matter what, and do so forever.

That had a collateral impact on the issue of an American-fathered child born on English soil.  What doctrinal view would be taken by sovereign Americans about the King claiming their children as his own subjects for life, stamping them with dual and conflicting nationalities since they would also be Americans through their father?

They rejected it entirely.  Their children were American and only American following the status and rights of their father.  That was their natural status as free people, -being living iterations and continuations of their free American father.

But that uncompromising pure Americanness of their children did not exist in a vacuum.  It had relationships or forces working against it that resulted due to long-term residency in Britain and to other Americans back home.  Two very significant unrelated factors were at play in space and time.

The space factor involved the space of the American States and those born in them.  The Time factor involved living in and raising a child under the sovereign reign of a foreign government.  A child becomes acculturated to the society and country in which he or she is raised and educated, unless kept psychologically separate, and even perhaps to an extent, physically separate from the native population.

If he grows up as a member of that society, then he shares in its rights and protections and thus evolves a natural responsibility toward his fellow countrymen.  He is no longer just a temporary guest who is here today and gone tomorrow.

Instead, he is a permanent member of the household and thus shares in the duties required to sustain it.  For female children, that means nothing.  But for male children, that means an obligation to submit to military service.

That is the duty of every young man toward the survival and freedom of his country.  So at maturity, upon reaching adulthood, he must chose which nation he owes that obligation to.  But if he doesn’t chose before adulthood, (and flee its jurisdiction in advance) the nation itself will chose for him.

If he is living in, has been living, and will continue living in the foreign nation of his up-bringing, then it will assert sovereignty over him when it comes to his natural duty to protect his own society.  That is the law of the United States and most other nations.

If he emigrates to his father’s country as a minor, then he is free from that obligation.  Since it is about blood connections and social integration; if a young man was born in America of foreign parents who then take him back to their homeland where he is raised, he, at adulthood, when facing mandatory military service in his country,  cannot emigrate to America to escape it.

The U.S. government will send him back even though he is technically a U.S. citizen.  That is because blood trumps borders.  His parents being foreigners, he naturally is also even though granted U.S. citizenship due to the borders within which he was born.

That which is natural takes precedence over that which is not natural and making the child of outsiders an insider is not a natural thing but a legal (and even a fictional) thing. But before explaining the real-world perception of that fiction, a final point needs to be made regarding an American child born in a place like Britain back in the founders’ era and for some time after.

He was not just deemed to be British, -not just given the gift of British subjecthood, but by the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, he was irrevocably bound to that nationality with no right to ever change it.  As if his nationality was in a category similar to race; a permanent factor of one’s nature.

All young men who left Britain and became Americans and were found aboard a ship stopped by the British could be and were immediately kidnapped and pressed into service in his majesty’s royal navy because they had no right to be Americans since they were born in Britain under the sovereignty of the Crown and thus belonged to it for life.

So what degree of accommodation could sovereign Americans have with such a doctrine and practice?  None!  And that was a large factor in the United States declaring war on the British Empire in 1812.  Americans simply could not accept dual sovereignty or dual nationality because the two could not be separated.

If you were considered British, then you could not be considered British and something else, -like American.  You were British and British only.  “Once an Englishman, always an Englishman”. No dual nationality because that meant dual allegiance and that was an anti-British doctrine since the Crown claimed full allegiance or obedience from its subjects.

Well, two could play that game and so they did.  The Americans despised the British doctrine as tyrannical and a violation of their real, natural “God-given” rights to be free people with the right to choose which people and nation one would attach himself to as his country.

That revolutionary attitude was so powerful and resonating around the world that it is even enshrined in the socialist Constitution of Cuba.  Freedom!  That means freedom to choose one’s homeland and citizenship and to swear allegiance to it and reject the land of one’s birth along with its pathetic and/ or dictatorial government.

The attitude of the founders was thus formed by a desire for freedom and unshared self-ownership, and that meant they also would reject dual allegiance and dual sovereignty and dual citizenship.  They instead embraced one allegiance, -one nationality, one flag, one people, one country, and one duty to defend it.

[Today that American attitude is under a massive attempt to end it and all sense of American patriotism since that sense includes respecting our early American values, and those values are a big problem.  That is because they include the factors of biblical beliefs and religious tenets which are intimately tied to historical American values and attitudes, -as expressed in the lyrics of most, if not all, traditional patriotic American songs. Songbooks containing those songs are banned in perhaps all of the public schools in America now. Their religious sentiments had to be purged.]

A child born in America could not be anything other than what his father passed on to him, including his nationality, or else you would have a child faced with all of the conflicts of competing dual relationships. What father would want that for his child?

None that embraced fundamental principles and unfettered liberty from life-long subservience, but most fathers who settled in America could not have cared less about such intangible things.  They wanted their children to become American citizens regardless of what their European government wanted.  That aspect of the nationality competition had no negative consequences once the War of 1812 was won, but there was another aspect of nationality conflict that remained; and that was over who had the right to be the President.

A man was totally sovereign over his own family.  His children could not talk-back to him, nor could they or his wife disobey him.  He was the center and spine of the family.  They were an inseparable part of him, -wherever they might go, including abroad.

All within his jurisdiction answered to him and were under him, with his children also being of him.  They could not be anything other than what he was.  If he was white, then they were white.  If he was Protestant, then they were Protestant.  If he was a Virginian, then they were Virginians.  If he was an American, then they were  Americans.

Where they happened to be born was totally irrelevant to the fundamental American principle of natural belonging.

As a partner in the common sovereignty of the American People, his American sovereignty was always a part of him and the family over which he reigned.

His children could only naturally be what he was.  They were a part of him and he was a part of The American People.  Thus his national membership was their national membership by birth.  That’s the pattern of Nature.

The principle of Nature, and the principle that the leadership of the federal government adhered to, (in opposition to the policy and laws of the State governments) did not end with the rights of Americans abroad, it also extended to the foreigners in America, -the State immigrants who by right were still subjects of foreign powers, -and their children along with them, -including their native-born children as well.

But the States could simply ignore the claims of foreign governments since they ceded international responsibility to the national government. Their only concerns were intra-state and national.

How exactly should we characterize the new national government’s view of British authority over Britain-born American children?  I think that “disdain” is too weak of a word.  “Despise” and “reject” would be more realistic.  Why?  Because the British doctrine of nationality had the audacity to claim their children for life.  British subjectship was thus not a gift but a life sentence with no possibility of reprieve.  How could any man born and raised in freedom accept such a tyrannical position of an alien government?

Well they couldn’t and they didn’t.  If the parents belonged to America then their children belonged to America as well.  All of them, including those born beyond the water’s edge.  The American government was not going to embrace a policy of splitting families apart (in a nationality sense) via allowing or recognizing any claim of ownership by a foreign government.  Americans and their children did not belong to any country other than America.

Their citizenship was purely United States citizenship, -from father to mother to sons and daughters.  No child could be split-off as an alien, -especially so since all families followed the nationality of the father and thus had only one nationality: his.

We’ve seen how the passage of time was related to the principle of natural citizenship, and now we need to understand the connection of “space”, or place to it.  For essentially every man in America, its connection was more theoretical or imaginary rather than being real and personally impactful.

It actually had no impact on anyone for over 100 years, so it could be considered to be in actual real-life a sort of ghost impact; invisible, and non-present.  But it had a real psychological impact for a brief few years at the dawn of the nation.

That impact was felt only after the first Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, which ordered that all Americans born abroad were to be considered (by all officials of all governments in America connected to presidential elections) as being natural born citizens.

The Congress that passed it did so rightfully and fairly because it comported with the actual meaning of what makes one a natural born citizen and protected their natural right to serve their country in every capacity possible.  But unfortunately, that is not all that it did.

It did something that went unnoticed by those who wrote it and passed it, -just as had happened when its elucidation was overlooked by those who wrote and passed the Constitution three years earlier.

They were probably not mindful of the collateral impact of such an order, an impact of a very negative sort for certain other Americans who were just as American, just as patriotic, and just as dedicated to their country as those American sons born abroad.

I speak of those men who, way back in their early years, -in fact the first year, -in fact the first day of their life, had been unable to be born to an immigrant father who had been naturalized and was thus no longer an alien but an American.

They were born to an alien as sons of a foreigner, and thus foreigners also via descent or political inheritance of his foreign nationality.  Well, if the word “natural” was understood by its natural meaning, -which has no connection to place of birth, then they had a huge potential roadblock to their aspirations and conceptualization of who they could potentially become in life.

The road to their imagined potential destiny of glory and honor as the leader of the only free nation on Earth suddenly had a troop of guards not allowing passage of any who were of their kind.  They were BARRED! (from the Presidency, -the equivalent office to that of an American king).

What patriotic American man’s dignity would not be insulted by such a strongly-manned border-like barricade?  The office of President was to Americans what the Throne of kingship would be in a nation which elected its king from among the nobility.

Every citizen’s son would aspire to be king one day, until they discovered that a new law had been passed that only permitted the first born sons to ascend to the Throne and wear the crown of power.  That would not sit well with a whole lot of citizens’ sons who were just as capable as their oldest brother, and perhaps even more so.  So there would be grumbling about changing that law.

The same thing happened in America where every son of a free man could aspire to be President, unless they were born after the Constitution was ratified.  That was when and how the roadblock was erected.  The prohibition and allowance for the presidency states in Article II, section I of the Constitution: “No person except a natural born citizen, –or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”

That language and temporary allowance for all American men to be President had a built-in time limitation.  That limitation would hardly have gone unnoticed by the immigrant community and all of its voters.  Such fathers, whether naturalized already, or not yet so, would have felt a real swell of pride at the thought that their sons could one day lead the nation that was a beacon of hope throughout the world, -as the President of the United States of America.

But if the meaning of natural born was defined by the English language and natural law instead of the British law, -the language of the bastardized common law, then no son of theirs could ever in his life aspire to be President if they had not been able to be naturalized before they fathered him.

That certainly seemed like a significant denial, and seemingly not for a legitimate reason, (national security) which didn’t even apply to his proud-American native-born patriotic sons.  So there was a collateral effect of significant psychological impact due to the Naturalization Act of 1790 declaring foreign-born American sons to be natural born citizens.

Their citizenship via inheritance from a citizen father meant that no citizenship was inherited in America from a foreign father, and thus being born and raised in the bosom of America meant nothing when it came to the presidency if born after the spring of 1788 when the Constitution was adopted by the 9th state to ratify it.

Since under the British, everyone born within the realms of the king was considered to be his natural-born subjects, they felt that that age-old custom should not be abandoned, leaving their sons out of the dream of aspiring to be President, much less the potential to actually serve.

So they wanted Congress to adopt a different stance about their sons, to accept the British distorted meaning of the words which eventually came to include every kind of British subject, even the naturalized.  That didn’t matter in Britain since they did not have an elected President & Commander-in-Chief.

What was the solution to the problem that Congress settled on?  They choose a very subtle and invisible and impartial stance of not deciding and instead employing ambiguous language that one could interpret any way one preferred.

The Congress that did that, the third Congress in 1795, rewrote the entire naturalization act and removed the words included by the founders that alluded solely to presidential eligibility (natural born) and instead simply labeled foreigner-born Americans as “citizens of the United States” (as apposed to being foreigners).  So they were, by law, no longer required to be recognized as natural born citizens.

The effect of that was not to literally disenfranchise such American sons from being President because none of them ever sought the presidency, but to enfranchise all foreign-fathered sons because the meaning of natural born citizen was no longer set by any American law.

That meant it could be interpreted differently, and viewed as including those who were not natural citizens in a real sense but were indistinguishable from natural citizens if their father was just as pro-United States as any other father.  Thereafter, all immigrant fathers and sons could be inspired by the potential that a member of their family, though born before the father’s naturalization, had the right to one day be President.  And that was the view held by many an American statesman, regardless of the meaning of the word “natural”.

To further illustrate the situation, let’s use a hypothetical.  Suppose that after the Constitution had been adopted, a freedom loving, pro-American immigrant and wife were going to have twins.  Suppose that one was born a day apart from the other.  And suppose that the one born first, -say late in the evening, was born the day before his father took the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation and became an American, -while the second one was born afterward on the day that he did.

Suppose that in adulthood, living in different towns or cities, they both became mayors, and later State Senators, and later still, United States Congressmen, -both totally equal in every conceivable way.  Identical, -and yet by adhering to the literal meaning of the term natural born citizen, one inherited American citizenship naturally while the other obtained it by the gift of the common law.

No one ever conceived that their citizenship could contain a difference that would ever make a difference, -until… the one born first aspired to be President and discovered that he was ineligible, while his twin brother was eligible.  Well, that wouldn’t strike anyone as being very fair, -and yet the Constitution’s meaning was implacable and unchangeable without an impossible-to-mount constitutional amendment.

So changing it was out, and instead, ignoring it was in.  It was “open for debate” as someone must have said at some time.  It was unsettled and so immigrant sons could all aspire, -like their fellows who were sons of citizens, to be President.  And guess what?  It is still unsettled!

No court has ever touched the subject and no court will ever want to because someone is going to come out a loser, -and that could be all children born in America of foreign parents (or just a foreign father).  No court wants to be the one to have to make that judgement because it would split America into two opposite factions.

You would either be on one side of the line or on the other, and unable to ever cross over, no matter how patriotic and heroic your service has been to your country, even at your maximum maturity in life, you would be blocked from wielding the power of the Commander-in-Chief, unless… you were the golden voice of patriotic prose that swelled hearts with pride and hope of wonderful change.

You know who that was.  The universal ignorance of the American people and their media and government and courts has allowed exactly what the Constitution intended to prevent, and it is all the result of the absence of one word: the word “actual”.

The founders failed to realize that in the ignorant future, their words would not be taken literally but would be presumed to have been borrowed from the bastardized language of the British common law.  They could not and did not perceive such a future.

If they had, then they would have inserted language that everyone was aware of from statements of revered British jurists who spoke of the difference between real natural subjects and legal-fiction “natural-born subjects”, -of actual natural subjects and artificial or “made” subjects.  “Subjects made” versus “subjects born”.

Although it is more likely than not that that distinction was between subjects at birth via blood or common law, versus subjects made by the authority of Parliament.  Still, fiction is fiction and reality is reality.  So if the founders and framers of the Constitution had added the word “actual”, -resulting in: “No person, except an actual natural born citizen shall be eligible…” that would have made it incontrovertible that no distortion of the natural meanings of the words would be acceptable, and the blanket meaning of the common law, -which included every man born within the nation’s borders, should not be tolerated.

But even without that, we have the meaning of the word “natural”.  Those who defend the “right” of the alien-born to be President based on the false presumption that a natural born citizen is somehow magically defined by British custom connected to British subjects who were all labeled “natural-born subjects”, cannot accept the literal meaning of the word “natural”.

A stark example of how wrong that attitude is can be seen in an alternative wording: “No person, except a white born citizen shall be eligible…”  Would such a wording have an equivocal meaning left up to the interpreter?  Could one simply ignore the word “white” as the defenders of an unconstitutional President do with the word “natural”?

Just imagine such a limitation being part of the Constitution of a nation such as Brazil, with its huge minority population of descendants of plantation slaves.  Any attempt to insert such language would hardly go unnoticed.

No one could claim that it really doesn’t mean anything and everyone can simply ignore it.  Rather, there would be insurrection and civil war.  Alternatively, it’s imaginable as being a part of the Constitution of a nation like Argentina, -which welcomed the Nazi war criminals since the Argentines were essentially an all-white, European settled nation which had a streak of anti-Semitism running through it.  They might have no push-back at all at the requirement that their President be a white born citizen.

Notice what is missing from that phrase; -a hyphen between “white” and “born”.  If there was a hyphen between those two words, they, together, would mean one who was born white, which is a sort of absurdity or redundancy since race can be acquired no other way than by being born with it.

But what it would imply is that the phrase is not requiring that one be a citizen from birth (a born citizen) but merely that they be “white-born”.  See the difference?  It is huge.  It would mean that those who acquired citizenship later in life could also be President if they were “white-born”, -not just those born with it naturally or by law. They, the naturalized, were born white, and were citizens, and thus could rule the nation.

How could a hyphen possibly be more impactful than that?  Such hypotheticals have a direct correlation to what Alexander Hamilton proposed in his suggestion of qualification for the presidency, proposing that he be no one but one “born a citizen”.  He himself was not a natural citizen of any colony since he was born (out of wedlock) and raised in the West Indies. *

To emphasize the effect of punctuation, notice the parenthesis I added (while proof-reading) in the previous sentence.  Without them, one cannot know where he was born, -only that he was born out of wedlock.  But with them one is informed that “he was born… and raised in the West Indies.”  If he was in a hypothetical situation of seeking leadership there, and native-birth was required, such ambiguity as to his background could be a huge roadblock. And so a simple hyphen can be just as important.

“Born a citizen” does not explicitly nor implicitly adhere to either natural law or common law, but is an ambiguous amalgam that could include both, -alien-born sons along with citizen-born sons.

The framers chose to supplement it with the word “natural” which seemed to explicitly refer to the principle derived from natural law and not the custom transplanted in America of nationality assignment by the rule of British common law.

After all, there was nothing natural about the logic of the common law doctrine.  So to them, “natural” meant what it means according to its English language meaning, and was not related to a similar use in the British term “natural-born subject”.

That is seen in the difference between “white-born citizen” and white “born citizen” which almost mirrors “natural-born subject” and natural “born subject”.

No reasonable person can show why the word “natural” does not relate to the word “citizen” instead of the word “born”, -as in “natural citizen”, -just as is the case with “white born citizen”.  “White” does not relate to “born” (as in “white-born“) but to citizen, as in “white citizen”.

So those who defend the presidential eligibility of one who is not a natural born citizen must either pervert the meaning of “natural” by asserting that it, combined with “born” constitute a legal term of artifice so neither need to taken literally, or they have to ignore it altogether just like a nation attempting to ignore the word “white” in “white born citizen”.  Neither stance is logical or realistic.

That which makes an alien-born native-son an American and not a foreigner is determined by which jurisdiction he was born under.  If he was born under foreign jurisdiction then his political character fails the test of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which requires that he be no one subject to any foreign power.

Anyone who fails that test also fails the test of the 14th Amendment which requires that he be born subject to United States jurisdiction.  That subjection must be full subjection, and that jurisdiction must be the complete jurisdiction of the American government over civilians, including its civilian political and taxing authority, as well as military authority if demanded.

That is an important point in regard to who is simply a citizen and thus not an alien.  It is determined by two factors; legality and residency.  If one is an illegal inhabitant then by definition he is not subject to the laws of the national government but is an “outlaw”, -outside of the law, -an outsider.

If one is a legal resident then that means he has the full permission of the federal government to remain in America permanently while remaining law-abiding.

If one is domiciled in America then he is a fellow member of American society and his children will be as well, and be raised as Americans.  So there is no good reason to define them as aliens when there is no alien-ness about them other than what rubs-off from the family.

If he has other siblings born and also raised for years abroad, they are not the same.  They do have some degree of alien-ness, or “alienage” attached to their makeup and background, depending on their age and years living in their foreign homeland.

Because they are truly foreigners and born as such in a foreign land, they have no right to be considered Americans.  The foreign jurisdiction that they are still subject to is part of who they are until they choose otherwise as adults.

But those born and raised in a nation that is not that of their parents are not under the jurisdiction of that nation unless and until the parents legally settle into an home where they intend to raise their family and assimilate into the society of the natives.

That does not happen to minor children of transient visitors, -tourists, -guests, or ministers.  They are subject only to their parents who remain subject to their own government and protected while abroad by the law of nations, international treaties, and positive laws of each host government.

As such, they fail from birth the tests of the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.  One cannot be simultaneously fully subject to two different governments on any moral basis, -although they can be on a legal basis.  The nation of the father takes precedence if the mother is of a different nationality.  [Originally that was impossible in America since all foreign brides became Americans like their husband upon taking the wedding vows.]

So a child born of a transient foreign father would be viewed by the American government as also a foreigner since no American jurisdiction attached to him during his “temporary” impermanent stay in the United States.  He would be considered “a non-immigrant alien” by the U.S. government.

Thus, in our nation as it was founded and functioned, no one like Barack Obama II would have been deemed by the United States State Department to be a United States citizen.  Thus he would not have been in the gray middle (between natural born citizens and aliens) via common law citizenship since in America it required permanent domicile. (immigrants parent, not transients).

So he would have fallen outside of the controversy about whether of not the native-born children of immigrants were natural born citizens and eligible to be President, because his father was not an immigrant but merely a foreign student temporarily in the United States on a one-year student Visa, and no where near the ball park of having a permanent residency-permitting Green Card.

Therefore, as an alien son of an alien, it is kind of hard to see exactly how he qualifies to be President, considering the mandate of that dusty old document kept locked in the basement; the United States Constitution.

by Adrien Nash  June 2014  obama–

 [wikipedia: [Hamilton was] among those dissatisfied with the Articles of Confederation …and led the Annapolis Convention, which successfully influenced Congress to issue a call for the Philadelphia Convention in order to create a new constitution. He was an active participant at Philadelphia and helped achieve ratification by writing 51 of the 85 installments of the Federalist Papers, which supported the new constitution and to this day is the single most important source for Constitutional interpretation.]

available as a Windows Word document here:


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: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: