Of Freedom & Subjection; Subsets & Citizens
July 4, 2014 2 Comments
To understand the nature of common law citizenship, and how it differs from natural citizenship, one must understand the fundamental relationships of life; -from family on up to nation. Only then will one clearly understand why someone such as Barack Obama cannot be viewed as being a citizen of the United States.
~Of Parentage & Subsets~
With a nation as the parent set, the states are subsets. Counties are subsets of the states. Cities & towns are subsets of counties. Clans are subsets of counties as well. Families are subsets of clans. Children are subsets of families.
In America, the proper order of governmental authority is upward, vertical, hierarchical, from smaller to larger, on up to national authority.
But not so for families. In the new union of States, families were subject directly to the State authority and essentially not at all to the new, limited national authority.
Membership in the aggregate nation was via membership in the component parts that constituted the Union; the States.
Unlike today, a family was subject to its State authority, and through it (to whatever degree it was subject) to the national authority.
The point is two-fold. One is that minor children were not directly subject to either State or national authority since they were under their father’s family-head authority.
That fact illuminates the second point. That children were a subset of the parents, and did not exist outside of the family set. Thus their existence was due to them being part & parcel of their parents.
They could not be part & parcel of some set to which their parents did not belong since their personhood and existence and membership was tied to that of the parents who constituted a specific set within a State or Province and nation.
Their children could not be natural members of a set completely unrelated and outside of the higher sets of which the parents were a part. Their membership was strictly hierarchically, -not horizontally, determined.
They could not be natural subjects nor citizens of a foreign parent set because it was not within the hierarchy of which they were a part.
They naturally belonged to their parents’ set and no other. Only artificial man-made rules and laws could assign them horizontally to a set of which they were not naturally a part, -making them by law a member of a subset to which they had no natural nor cultural nor historical connection.
That all relates to international assignment of national membership when birth is within foreign borders. Bringing a child into the world far from one’s homeland has historically carried with it the attachment of subjection to the British Crown if born within its territories. Such an attachment of British membership (for one’s entire life without any option to opt out) resulting from a brief moment at the beginning of one’s life (delivery) was a wholly unnatural criterion for nationality assignment from a logical standpoint.
But it came in times past with the near certainty that children born within the realm would grow up within the realm also, as British subjects. In today’s world, no such near certainty exists since modern means of travel make being settled in one place or nation for life a non-certainly.
But we are still saddled with the old paradigm about birth and maturation occurring in the same place, and the legal system fashioned on that assumption has not changed to accommodate the modern world’s reality.
Children of foreigners, if born within the parents’ new adopted nation, have always been granted the gift of national membership based solely on the location of their birth within the borders of the realm. That membership made them a member of a subset to which their parents were aliens and outsiders.
That was wholly unnatural, but also wholly practical and reasonable. Natural principle had to take a backseat while humans made an accommodation of sociological necessity and rationality. It was rational because all such children who fit the old model of growing up in the nation in which they were born would grow up to be identical to their citizen peers, (-unless raised by radically hostile or dogmatically isolationist parents’).
This all ties in to the issue of whether or not Barack Obama is an American citizen. Since by law, he could not inherit his mother’s citizenship, that left only his father’s, which he did inherit in a provisional sense. But U.S. citizenship is presumed to have been ascribed to him due to his native-birth, but that presumption is flawed and incorrect.
It is based on a gross oversimplification of the 14th Amendment. It requires both native birth and subjection to the full sovereign authority of the American national government. And that is where everyone goes off the track. They fail to grasp just what the extent of that jurisdiction or authority is and how one is or is not subject to it.
The issue of who is subject to it is intimately tied to the understanding of just what “it” is. If that authority is one thing then the consequence is different than if it is something more. (civilian law alone? or much more?) But who is subject to it is determined by which subset one belongs to.
In the matter of jurisdiction, there is no such thing as natural horizontal assignment of subordination. There is only natural vertical or hierarchical assignment, -through the higher parent groups to which one belongs.
That hierarchy flows upward from children through the father to his State and national authority and membership. The father does not naturally belong to two separate nations anymore than a child naturally belongs to two separate families or sets of parents. So when a couple, or a man alone, travels to another nation, he does not leave nor abandon the national parent set to which he belongs. He is still a citizen of his own country, nation, and homeland. He is still subject to its authority.
In the case of the United States, that includes the obligation to pay taxes on all taxable income though living and working abroad; to register with the Selective Service bureau if male between 18 and 25 years of age; remaining loyal to the nation and not committing acts such as treason which could harm it, nor disobeying laws against visiting or dealing with pariah nations.
Foreign guests to America are not subject to any of that authority since they remain subject to their own government. But that changes when they take steps to lawfully become permanent residents by applying for and qualifying for and receiving a Green Card.
Then they have changed which government they are subject to since they have willingly made America their home. Then they too fall under the obligations of citizens of the nation. They must meet the requirements just as must all applicable citizens (with males under an additional obligation) as long as the USA is their home.
If they perform acts to benefit the nation’s enemies, then they can be charged with treason even though not U.S. citizens and not even in the United States at the time of the acts. (during temporary foreign travel or residency, like training in an Al Qa’ida terrorist camp.)
So we see that in regard to foreigners, being subject and being under the full sovereign authority of the U.S. government is all tied to residency; whether it is temporary as a guest on a U.S. Visa, or permanent via a Green Card.
One changes from belonging to a foreign national authority-set to the American authority-set via permanently putting down roots. Buying a home and working in the U.S. would be a prime example of doing that, along with having and raising children here.
So now that all raises the question of which set a certain Barack Obama from Kenya belonged to. The British-Kenyan set? Or the American set? The answer could not be more clear since he was merely a guest of the government via a 1 year student Visa. He remained subject to his own national authority since he had no roots here nor any permission to permanently stay. In fact after three extensions and four years of college, he was ordered to leave.
Any time during that time his own national authority could have ordered him to return home, drafted him into the military, and charged him with treason against the nation if he had committed treasonable acts. The jurisdiction that he was under was clear, unmistakable, and unquestionable. He was not subject to America’s sovereign authority over its own permanent inhabitants, -the members of its society.
Thus, with his subjection to a foreign jurisdiction, no son born within the set of his family authority was born outside of that authority and its obligations. Whatever nation the father was subject to was therefore the nation to which the child was a natural member since his membership was through his father, and the father was not a member of the American set, the American family, the American nation.
The jurisdiction over the father and the son extended downward vertically, hierarchically, not horizontally. In reverse direction, the subjection under which the son was born extended upward vertically, hierarchically, and not, as a baby, horizontally & directly to the United States government.
No one who is sane, will argue that babies and children are directly subject to sovereign national government authority. They are subject only to the needs of nature, -unless living in the new authoritarian Germany which has made it essentially a crime to educate your own children.
Everyone who would claim that Barry Obama was born directly subject to the authority of the United States government must endorse such a tyrannical abuse of the unalienable rights of parents over their own. They must profess to believe that the government, in a real and practical sense, owns everyone’s children and not the parents who gave them life and sustenance.
So if Barack Obama, by their warped and authoritarian interpretation of 14th Amendment jurisdiction, is a United States citizen, then the German model of State ownership of all children is the American way also. Would you agree with their view? Children are directly subject to national governments?
Common sense, reason, and an awareness of your unalienable rights answers the question without any hesitation or doubt. No one owns your children but you. No national membership assigned to them by foreign governments must be accepted by you. Any claim of national sovereignty over them is a violation of your natural rights.
You hold all of the cards because you hold the fundamental primal rights over your children and your government, and you, a sovereign member of We, the People, determine the rules of the game, -not autocrats, plutocrats, oligarchs and unelected tyrants. You are the master; they are the servants. Or else you are no longer free and are instead living under a dictatorship of the elites who can tell you that they own your children and not you.
In that world, Barack Obama could be considered to be an American citizen by enforced policy. But that is not the American world or American Law. Yet. But it might as well be because that is the status quo belief and consensus view of America nationality assignment.
Entrenched unprincipled policy is viewed as an incontestable god in the religion of nationality assignment. And reason and the actual law do not matter at all, because the entire legal priesthood worships at the alter of Almighty Precedence, and it is now over a century old. No precedence of such age has ever been overturned except one: the one that was terminated in order to give us the current one which replaced it back in 1898.
Prior to that travesty, the federal government rejected dual-citizenship, and dual allegiance as repugnant to national sovereignty and loyalty. Thus the children in America could only possess their father’s nationality, and no other, regardless of being born with State citizenship from birth while their fathers’ were still aliens.
In 1898 that changed due to a Supreme Court opinion which made State common law citizenship national policy as well. Then the Justice Department went one step even further and expanded the court’s opinion to included not just children of immigrants but children of anyone (as long as they are not an ambassador) including those of foreign guests.
And that new policy has remained “the law” of the land ever since. Entrenched. Institutionalized. Universally unquestioned. Common knowledge. Consensus legal opinion. The unchallengeable status quo because precedence is God. And no one even dares think to question God.
by Adrien Nash July 4th, 2014 obama–nation.com