A Silver Bullet to Alien Barackula’s Heart
July 1, 2014 Leave a comment
“Congress thought they had to provide jus sanguinis citizenship like England did because such foreign born persons were aliens without a naturalization statute.”
That is the consensus view about Americans born beyond the border. The consensus view is asinine on its face.
Congress thought no such thing. But when I say “Congress” I’m referring to the only one whose view counted the most, and that was the first one, composed of the founders and framers of the Constitution, and authors of the Bill of Rights.
You know what they mandated. -that all recognize Americans born abroad as being natural born, presidency-eligible citizens that they are because they are born being Americans by nature via their inherited political DNA.
That truth does not support the whole deluded establishment consensus opinion that has been bastardized by the nefarious influence of the rejected policy of British nationality doctrine.
Your characterization of American children as mere “persons” is antithetical to fundamental American rights and values. You must be childless and missing a normal parental understanding of family. It is inconceivable that any mother or father could naturally hold such a heretical view of belonging, -on the personal level as well as the national level.
Are your non-existent children not yours because they were not born under your roof, on your property, within your jurisdiction? Please explain why that is.
And then to claim that they were considered to be “aliens” is shear stupidity as a national policy, as constitutional policy, and as moral policy.
We are not Britain’s identical twin! We never merged with a foreign nation (Scotland) and then had to integrate two different monarchies, governments, cultures, and laws.
If you were right, there would be no need for such statute which, of course, only applied to the foreign born since the native born were already natural born citizens.
News Flash! There was no need for such a statute! CITIZEN-BORN = NATURAL BORN.
Understand this; naturalization is a process to make foreigners into “natural citizens”. And what are foreigners? They are those born of foreigners. The “foreign-born” are different from the “foreigner born” but EVERYONE conflates the two erroneously. The alien-born are the opposite of those who are American-born, citizen-born.
But ambiguity is inescapable since it is so easy to conflate “born of citizens” and “born as citizens”; or “born of foreigners” and “born as foreigners”. The difference does not matter in any way in American life until someone decides to actually seek the Presidency. Then and only then does it matter that some of those born as Americans are not born of Americans but born of foreigners. It matters because only those born of Americans are natural American citizens and eligible to serve as President.
STATE CITIZENSHIP vs NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP
U.S. Constitution: Article IV, Section 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States.
[note: the subject is not “persons” in each State but only “citizens of”]
On the difference between a state citizen and a “natural born citizen” or a citizen of the United States, we have this from Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856):
“In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union.
It does not by any means follow, that because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, he must be a citizen of the United States.
He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State.
For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by “the laws of nations” and the comity of States.
Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, [federal] nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States.
The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them.
The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.
It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the [national] political community created by the Constitution of the United States.
It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own. And for the same reason it cannot introduce any person, (or description of persons), who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family, [the American citizen family] which the Constitution brought into existence, [a new nation] but were intended to be excluded from it.”
Id. at 405-06.
That illumination reveals a few rather clear but surprising facts: Each State remained sovereign over the citizenship within its own borders, -State citizenship. It was separate from the citizenship entitled to all members of the Union of the States under the Constitution.
What existed under the Constitution was a situation of there continuing to be the individual independent countries within a greater country. Membership in any of the component countries was independent of membership in the greater country since it followed different rules.
The Constitution insured the rights of all State citizens being respected in each of the other States but only to the extent of State citizens being of a type of person universally accepted by all of the other States of the union. The character of citizen that was recognized under the Constitution as being a citizen nationally and universally accepted in all States involved parameters that could not be exceeded by any individual State and still have their citizen accepted in the national family of citizenship. That was an unwritten agreement and understanding between the independent sovereign republics that formed the union.
So in effect it was that they all understood that all of their standard citizens would be taken as equal citizens in all other States and equally members of the aggregate nation. But their non-standard citizens would not, and would remain solely citizens of the State that made them into a citizen.
What would conceivably be a non-standard citizen (as I’m labeling such citizens)? It could have been persons from a particular area of Europe that had ethnic groups that were particularly unacceptable to most Americans, and no doubt there were plenty of them, -none of them with a British heritage, nor English language background (even some of them were highly despised, namely the Irish), -foreigners who were truly foreign. And that was just foreigners from Europe (Eastern, Southern, Catholic, Muslim, etc.) without even getting to the truly alien areas of the world such as Asia.
A State with a sizable percentage of very foreign foreigners would want to naturalize them as able, but the other States would not want to accept them as fellow Americans because they would never cease being foreign to them, and so they would be among those with a non-standard character that was not universally accepted and understood to be what an American is under the agreement of the Constitution.
It was all about sovereignty. The States retained their independent right to naturalized foreigners by their own rules, but under the Constitution there was a new nation-wide standard written by Congress first in 1790 for re-making foreigners into American citizens, -citizens of the new nation of the United States.
It was very simple, -dealing with length of residency prior to naturalization, character; -it had to be “good”, and race; it had to be “white”, -with white not being defined but meaning in reality Caucasian. That was ambiguous as white immigrants from India once found out. Were they also what the Anglo-Saxons considered white? [-that occurred in Britain though] Inadequate language terms never make for clearly understood law.
States had always existed previously as separate chartered self-governed monarchy-subject republics which had their own rules about who to naturalize and how, and that independence continued up to and beyond the Constitution with each of the new States coming under a new national authority over national citizenship in addition to their own continuing authority over intra-state citizenship.
They could still adopt and follow naturalization rules separate from the new uniform national rule but if they did so, the citizens that they recognized would not have to be recognized by the other States nor the national government.
This author has no idea if any State ever made citizens that other States refused to recognize, but if it did happen, it probably involved free Africans or African-Americans made citizens in the North but not recognized as citizens in the South. The focus here is not on what happened but on what could have happened.
Such citizens may have also included despised American Indians, or Asians, or Catholic Latinos, or religious groups rejected by all other Americans, such as the Mormons or Muslims. It might have also included foreign women. They were not naturalized by any State since they assumed the nationality of their husband. But if he was dead and they were left as the head of a family, that was different.
The rights of citizenship were tied to the right of inheritance, -as was the age-old situation in Britain. In young America it continued, and by law in many or most States no foreigner could inherit American property. Conceivably, a non-standard State citizen could be barred from inheriting property in another State.
The other limitations on them would have involved rights of contracts not being enforced in other States, and other “privileges and immunities”, including serving on a federal jury or as a federal officer. That would not be allowed because in the eyes of the rest of America, they were aliens. But standard civil rights and protections would naturally be afforded, as for all persons, including immigrants.
We can see from Dred Scott, decided in 1856, and the opinion by Attorney General Cushing rendered in 1857 that the New York state court in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) had no power or authority to take someone who it considered to be a citizen of New York and proclaim him to be not only a citizen of the U.S., but also a natural born citizen.
This understanding of the difference between state citizenship and national citizenship also makes the point of how the Obots erroneously conflate and confound a state citizen under colonial English common law and a natural born citizen under American national common law. [nash notes: bear in mind that the colonial English common law continued via new State Constitutions and that that continuing policy was ruled by the high court to be codified by the 14th Amendment.]
Obot Ballantine, after six years of study of this subject, still to this day erroneously uses state citizenship under some state’s common (the colonial English common law) or statutory law as providing the rules of decision for defining an Article II natural born citizen.
[nash notes: his interpretation is wrong but the context is accurate since natural born state citizens were what the founders and framers had in mind when no substantial national government existed yet, and the States were still free to exercise full sovereign rights to the degree agreed to in the Articles of Confederation. All State children born of State citizens were natural born citizens.]
Wilted Rose said…
Even though Calvin (1608) was considered an English subject because he was born within the King’s dominions, he was considered naturalized at birth since his parents were considered aliens in England.
“First, The King hath the Crown of England by Birthright, being naturally procreated of the Blood Royal of this Realm: Secondly, Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by Procreation and Birthright , since the Descent of the Crown of England:…” [England adopting (as their king) the King of Scotland]
“…yet was it resolved, That all those that were born under one natural Obedience, while the Realms were united under one Soverign, should remain natural-born Subjects, and not Aliens; for that Naturalization due and vested by Birth right , cannot by any Separation of the Crowns afterward be taken away: nor he that was by Judgment of Law a natural Subject at the Time of his Birth, become an Alien by such a Matter ex post facto. ”
The reports of Sir Edward Coke Kt. In English (1727)
[So, Calvin was a natural born subject by natural “procreation and birthright” naturalization.]
“For it is not much to make a subject naturalized by the law of England: it should suffice, either place or parents. If he be born in England it is no matter though his parents be Spaniards, or what you will: on the other side, -if he be born of English parents it skilleth [matters] not though he be born in Spain, or in any other place of the world.
In such sort doth the law of England open her lap to receive in people to be naturalized ; which indeed sheweth the wisdom and excellent composition of our law.” Francis Bacon (1730)
Wilted Rose said: Both Coke and Bacon were speaking in the generic sense that Calvin was a natural born subject. Natural born subject was a catch-all term for all of the King’s subjects whether they were naturalized, denizens, or born subjects under the common law rule [to alien parents] or born in the realm of subject parents.
When Blackstone said “generally speaking” I think he was saying that children born to alien parents were also subjects because they were naturalized by birth in the realm. “Natural born subject” covered a lot of territory.
I think that people are interpreting Blackstone wrong, not that he was necessarily wrong in what he said; he was just imprecise. You can see from the quotes above that Coke and Bacon knew that a child of an alien was naturalized or made a denizen at birth. Back in 1604 natural born subject and denizen were often conflated.
[nash notes: Denizen as a non-legal term simply means inhabitant. One could be made a Denizen by the King’s decree but not a subject. Only Parliament had that authority. But the King could make a denizen-inhabitant into a legal Denizen with certain rights, -akin to a legal immigrant in America who has a Green Card.]
~Note the maximal expansion of the meaning of “naturalized”, which is used for both natural subjects and made subjects.
The natural subjects are naturalized (or made natural) by Nature, (not man) via “Procreation” while the alien-born are made fictionally natural by the custom of common law, (probably dating back to William the Conqueror).
The term “birthright” later came to be bastardized to refer not to its real root of a right by inheritance, but a right by native-birth, with blood being replaced by birth-place. (“The King hath the Crown of England by Birthright”, i.e., -blood)
It’s strictly correct form would have been the cumbersome “native-birth right” instead of “birthright”, which was misappropriated.
Mario wrote: “American common law did no such thing, [deem native-born children of aliens to be citizens) for under that law they were aliens and in need of naturalization by Acts of Congress or treaties or later by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
They were naturalized by State or federal magistrates in a court of record, having nothing to do with Congress.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” 1790).
~”Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person,(1) who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,(2) may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States (3) wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least (4),
-and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character,(5) and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States,(6) which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon(7); and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.”
Congress had no authority over the regular practice of domestic naturalization, nor over any American citizen and his citizen children.
“The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen,…”
Sloppyfartass inspired my invective in this reply: Natural law crap?? Crap you lack the spine to ever even once repeat, quote, or “debunk”?
What a fraud and coward you are. Hiding from the truth that exposes your delusional legal theories that reject the very foundation on which law is grounded.
Well, thanks to your promulgating false doctrine, -and my mind ruminating on your deceit, my subconscious presented a fact to my mind that renders Barry an alien. It is probably a silver bullet straight through his unconstitutional socialist heart.
It’s basically very simple. It explains the farthest reach of what 14th Amendment jurisdiction really is. Do you know what it is? No, you don’t. But you will now. It is the sovereign authority of government to accuse, try, convict, and execute a person for treason.
NO ONE WHO IS EXEMPT FROM THAT AUTHORITY IS SUBJECT TO THE FULL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES!
Obama’s father was not subject. He could not have committed nor been accused of treason because America was not his country, -and he was not subject to its political, nor military, nor taxing authority, nor any obligation of allegiance. Thus, neither was any child born to him. Thus no child of his would be covered by the 14th Amendment since subjection is inherited from one’s father, -always was.
Only American citizens and legal permanent-resident immigrants are subject to a charge of treason. No ambassador, no guest, no visitor, no tourist, no foreign student. They can’t be called traitors. They all are outside of American sovereign political authority and national membership obligation.
The bottom line is that Barry Jr. was not born as an American citizen regardless of any ignorant presumption that he was. He may be deemed to be one by executive branch legal policy, but that is not the same as law. By law, he is an Alien. It is false to claim that what is claimed to be the law actually is law. It is merely entrenched, institutionalized error dating back to 1898.
Last I checked, no alien is eligible to be President since they are not natural born citizens as the Constitution requires.
But as you are aware, Obama Sr. was exempt from the jurisdiction mentioned in the amendment, and thus his son was as well, rendering him a British subject only. If only his father had been an immigrant, then he would have fathered an American per the 14th Amendment common law, instead of an alien as was the case.
“Non-immigrant alien” = non-subject alien = non-subject child = non-citizen child.
It’s quite simple and plain but the boneheads in the Justice Dept. have followed the directive of the John Griggs Justice Dept since 1898 and have never had motivation to question it. It is pure institutionalized error.
by Adrien Nash obama–nation.com