Unbelievable Claims for an Unbelievable Citizenship Doctrine

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…

Adrien Nash,

You concluded: “Automatic citizenship is their American right, and no doctrine can take it from them.”

This is where you fail to understand a fundamental aspect of citizenship. The United States does not have jurisdiction over children born in a foreign nation. Children born in foreign nations are subject to that nation’s jurisdiction.

reply: No baby is ever subject to any government. They are subject to nothing except nature. Parents are the ones who are subject, -to their babies needs. Children are also not subject but are subject to their parents. Under-age teens are also not subject to a nation’s sovereign political authority.

So your fundamental view of reality is distorted by your political doctrine. When one starts off with a false premise, what follows it will also be wrong, as is the case.

~Those nations, by making or potentially making those children citizens by jus soli as does the United States, by definition takes away their natural born citizen status in the United States.

Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom nor former British colonies make citizens via jus soli. Rather, soil-based native-birth inclusion operates like an ancient force of nature to which all must bow. When a country is established with it as a fundamental custom, then government is not relevant to its independent existence and operation. Government merely acknowledges it as that which is and was and will always be. Just as if it were a natural principle, a natural, primal rule inherent to society.

Such was the incontestable, unchallengeable nature of common law citizenship. Generations came and went but it remained. It preceded them and it succeeded them. They were mere temporary swimmers in its endless flow. Endless until a revolution overturned everything and a new reset took effect. That reset did NOT take effect in the States but did so in the new national government which essentially started with a clean slate and a completely different perspective, namely; international.

But aside from that point, his main point is that foreign nations can abridge or abrogate the natural status of a man’s children. That has to be the most illogical and baseless claim he has ever made. Wild!

What foreign nations’ nationality laws do is irrelevant to the nature of American children being American. They are not dependent upon nor affected by foreign laws since they are conceived by and born of sovereign American citizens.
America does not kow-tow to any foreign sovereign nor his or its opinion as to American children.
They are still under American sovereignty everywhere by being aliens in all other nations through which their parents travel or even live temporarily. They remain under the national status given them by natural political inheritance, common law citizenship, or naturalization.  The status of being American citizens.

“Those nations…by definition take away their natural born citizen status in the United States.”

That is hallucinatory thinking. Not worthy of any thinking person. Such a claim is utterly false both sociologically and legally speaking, coming with no basis in anything. Understand this; being a natural citizen by birth is not a status that is dispensable, removable, nor alterable. Being born as an American is the same as being born as a member of one’s own race. Nothing can nullify it. One’s natural political character is as permanent as one’s racial or ethnic character.  It is not alterable (unless you are Michael Jackson) except by one’s own volition. Then and only then can one’s innate national character be viewed as having been abandoned and no longer recognized. Some totalitarian (North Korea) and non-totalitarian nations reject self-expatriation.

It’s said that Greece recognizes its far-flung emigres and their multiple generations of foreign-citizen children as also being innately Greek and eligible for various privileges of citizenship. They are viewed as being of Greek blood, -just as Hitler used the same moral argument regarding Germans in neighboring nations as a pretext for annexing them. And as Russia did in the Crimea.

So where can one find the “definition” by which foreign nations can alter in any way the natural membership with which American babies are born? By what kind of authority is that “taking away” accomplished?  Oh, None!

Being a natural born citizen is not a legal classification. It is solely a socio-political classification. It has nothing to do with the power or authority of government since it is as natural as the “status” of one’s own natural children. They also have no government-assigned family member status since they are natural children naturally. Can that “status” be taken away due to the fact that they were not born on the parents’ own sovereign property but in a hospital? Could that make them merely their legal children but not their natural children?

It insults one’s intelligence to even have to address such an absurdity, and yet Mario must go to just such extreme lengths in order to shore-up his self-contradictory doctrine.

Simply stated, one cannot be a natural born citizen of two nations. Such a notion is a contradiction in terms. Even Coke and Blackstone said that no man can be born having to serve two masters, although the English common law created just that.

That is certainly true but also certainly has nothing to do with American children since being a natural born citizen has nothing to do with foreign nations. It is the natural consequence of birth to parents of the same nation. His attempted false logic is meant to “prove” his erroneous point but is a total non sequitur. The two issues are illegitimately linked in a sophistical logic that holds no water. It is premised falsely on an erroneous presumption that a baby’s place of delivery is an innate element of natural citizenship when it is totally irrelevant. Instead it is totally dependent on the nationality of the parents, -not one’s inconsequential entrance location to the world.

Hence, there is a doctrine that can take away that child’s natural born citizen status and that is the municipal laws of that foreign nation which the United States recognizes as creating foreign citizenship and allegiance.

Doctrines can “take away” nothing. They are only doctrines, not sovereign authority. Governments are not ruled by doctrines but by laws and policies. Policies may follow doctrines but doctrines have no power to force policy administrators to follow them.

He claims that foreign laws or policies or doctrines force the United States government to defer to them, -to surrender U.S. sovereignty to foreign doctrines or laws. Just ask yourself, when exactly did the American government become subservient to foreign powers in regard to sovereign American authority over America’s own children?

The American position is that only American-fathered children born & raised in (or just raised in) a foreign nation are subject at adulthood to its natural right to require national participation in national defense of all of its able-bodied young men who are acculturated members of its society.

If such an American son leaves his foreign homeland to escape military induction, he will be returned by his own government to the foreign government to which he owes a debt of service as a member of its society. To avoid that duty, if imposed, he must leave the country he was raised in before he becomes an adult, -emigrate to the United States, -not flee as a draft dodger to the United States after adulthood.

“which the United States recognizes as creating foreign citizenship and allegiance.”

And where is the proof of such a statement? Nowhere, -because it does not exist. The U.S. recognizes that foreign laws may deem American sons to be citizens from birth but it does not recognize that citizenship as real. It views it as baseless fiction for all intents and purposes, -unless an American son is raised to adulthood in that country.

As for the nebulous concept of allegiance being recognized, it is not even connected to the issue of nationality status, but moral obligation certainly is, and is obligatory. Allegiance is solely connected to the issue of national security and what position one may be allowed to serve in. One is not allowed constitutionally to serve as President if born with two competing parental nationalities which would foster dual and competing allegiance, making one only half-American, and not solely American with no possibility of another national loyalty.

Our early Congress recognized this and that is why in the 1790 Act said that those children “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and in the 1795 Act and in all that followed said they “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” As we can see, [watch out!, here comes the false logic and baseless supposition] the first Congress saw those foreign-born children as needing its naturalizing grace.

What the first Congress saw was that there was no constitutional protection nor recognition of the unalienable right of all American men, -husbands and fathers, to pass their American citizenship to their  foreign-born American children (and foreign wives).  So they filled that deficiency by mandating that they be recognized as fellow natural born citizens, and not as aliens or citizens ineligible to be President.

Plus, the “naturalizing grace” of Congress was non-existent and unneeded since all children (and wives) of American men were automatically recognized as being Americans also. The congressional Naturalization Act of 1855 declared that foreign brides of American grooms were automatically deemed to be United States citizens.

So if a foreign person were automatically deemed to be an American due to the union of marriage, how much more would a man’s own flesh and blood undoubtedly be deemed to be American like the father that produced it?  His child is blood of his blood, flesh of is flesh.  How could it possibly not be what he is, but be alien instead?

How can a mother deliver a child that is an alien to her in a sociological and psychological and genetic sense? [excluding artificial en vitro fertilization). It is a part of her even if her child is given citizenship as a gift due to native-birth.  That gift does not “take away” the natural membership that the child shares with its mother and father in their nation.

Second, it saw them not as true natural born citizens but only naturalized citizens at birth who enjoyed all the privileges and immunities possessed by natural born citizens less the privilege of being President,

Just when I think I’ve read the most absurd thing ever, he manages to top himself.  He has now appointed himself as a time-traveling mind-reader who can confidently declare that the most conscientious Congress in history indulged in fictional law making, pretended mandates, with purely artificial meanings attached to their solemn words.   He actually says that Congress did not see them as that which they said they saw them as while ordering everyone else to see them as as well, but instead only saw them as naturalized natural born citizens!!!???  What in the world could possibly be a more enormously oxymoronic than that?

That is the equivalent to saying that one must recognize a certain person as being a surgically created “natural” female when the person was born as a female, arguing that the person was not really born as a “real” natural female but was made one by surgery that was unneeded and never happened.  How can such “logic” be effectively and logically rebutted when it is not even in the logic ball park?

and then later substituting [in later acts] “citizen of the United States” for their status and concomitant privileges and immunities which were the same as before (!) given that they never had the right to be President in the first place.

Yikes!  Just kill me now because I’ve now heard everything!   So…. the third Congress “wisely” corrected the “error” of the founders’ Congress by changing language which actually changed nothing!?  Yeoow!  My mind just did a back-flip.

So Congress down-graded their status to a lower status which had exactly the same nature as before.  Half my brain just melted.  So the founders’ Congress ordered that they be recognized as natural born citizens and thus eligible to be President but did not mean a word of it because according to Mario those American sons were never, ever even possibly eligible to be President by the dogma of his self-contradictory doctrine.  Well, it does make some consistent sense considering it paints them all as aliens by birth (but citizens by naturalization!).  And you know that no alien is or ever was eligible to be President.  So Voila! – consistency is restored!

But of course that leaves the unanswered question as to why the first Congress would label as natural born citizens children who, by the nativist doctrine, were actually aliens?  Indeed, why?  Well there’s only one good reason.   They were stupid.  It’s either that or the one making them look stupid is actually the stupid one.

Let’s think now…. -the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution and august members of the first Congress of the new government were off their rockers, or some one else is off his.  You decide.  (hint: it’s kind of a no-brainer).

Evidently there is some sort of psycho-dynamic going on inside of Mario’s noggin that renders his mind incapable of recognizing self-contradiction and inconsistency.  It’s a pity.


  There’s another huge self-contradiction in Mario’s nativist theory of nationality to expose.
It starts with his accurate insight into the effect of the naturalization acts in limiting U.S. citizenship in regard to the children of naturalized foreigners. The acts state that citizenship is only extended to those “dwelling within the United States”. That means that all native-born persons born of aliens are aliens also regardless of being considered citizens of the State in which they were born per State constitutions or statutes.

That is crucial to Presidential eligibility, showing that since the national government did not consider them to even be citizens, they could not possibly have been considered to be natural born citizens as the Constitution requires for the presidency. That nails that issue and renders Obama an alien according to the founding generation of national leaders, leaders who, in the first Congress, included founding fathers and framers of the Constitution itself, -leaders who wrote the Bill of Rights constitutional amendments.

But they also wrote something that is in direct opposition to Mario’s doctrine, and that is that the American children born abroad are to be considered natural born citizens, -just like their brethren back home, and thus equally eligible to one day run for the office of President. But what has gone unrecognized is the fact that those two facts are directly related and are as inseparable as two sides of a coin.

Here’s why; the principle by which the native-born children of immigrants were deemed to be aliens just like their father was the principle of natural membership, i.e., jus sanguinis; membership by right of blood. They were aliens and not Americans regardless of birth within America because the national government did not honor jus soli citizenship which was based on the British common law assigning native-birth as being a central determinant of nationality.

Instead the founders and framers abandoned that imperial doctrine of life-long subjection to the Crown based on birth location in favor the of Law of Nature. “Each species reproduces after its own kind” whether in the natural realm or the political realm of nations. By it, no child could be something totally different from his father.

To be deemed a citizen of a nation of which the father was not a part would have been a gross intervention of government into the unity of the family, splitting it into two different nationalities, as well as imparting a form of national bigamy to a child native-born in a strange land. To which nation would he owe his loyalty at adulthood? That was an inescapable conundrum in regard to parents of different nationalities, resulting in children attached to two nations instead of just one. But many, or perhaps most, nations reject dual citizenship and dual sovereignty and dual allegiance as an insult to national sovereignty, as did the United States until 1898 when the Wong opinion was handed down.

So the problem for Mario Apuzzo is that the doctrine that he applies to children of foreigners in America is the same doctrine that he fails to apply to children of Americans born abroad. By jus sanguinis and the principle of the American naturalization acts, they would not be recognized as members of the foreign nation where they were born, -just as the children of that nation (born in the U.S.) would not be recognized as Americans. Nationality would have been reciprocally assigned in both nations by patrilineal descent, via the inherited political nature of the family’s father.

But what does Mario’s doctrine dictate? That they are aliens in need of naturalization to even be mere citizens without any right to ever seek the Presidency, regardless of who their American father might have been, including a future or former President.

So he has the U.S. born children of foreigners defined by U.S. law as aliens, per jus sanguinis, but also has their counterpart (American children) born abroad also being defined as aliens!!! -per jus soli, just as the British did under common law which eventually naturalized them until later they were officially deemed subjects by statute of Parliament.  So Mario argues that America rejected British common law but adopted his fictional international / American common law which combined both birth place and parentage, -unlike any other nation in history.  Thus jus sanguinis was inadequate for natural citizenship if lacking the unrelated factor of native-birth in America.

But if those foreign children were natural members of their father’s foreign homeland via inheritance of his nationality, then by the same logic, the children of Americans born abroad would be natural members of their father’s homeland, the United States, and yet he declares them to be aliens and forever ineligible to be the U.S. President. That is the exact opposite of how he designates I.S. born children of aliens.

To support his doctrine, Congress would have had to have recognized the State citizenship of the immigrants’ U.S. born children, but instead they rejected it. If they were deemed to be Americans, then Mario could argue that American children born abroad were deemed to be subjects of the monarch of the nation in which they were born. But the founders, framers, and the first Congress rejected such a view, defining such American children as Americans and not foreigners, and natural born Americans at that (via jus sanguinis).

Such a self-contradictory position is a form of self-check-mate. It is the end of the line for his doctrine. There are no other moves that can rescue it. It has self-imploded.

I’ve always known that by natural law his doctrine was dead wrong, but never before did I see the juxtaposition of his two stances side-by-side in total contradiction. Now, once it has been seen for what it is, it can never be unseen. It falls on its illogical face when stripped to its bare essentials and examined up close. It’s like dogmatically asserting that two unknown skeletons are twin sisters, only to discover that one is twice the age of the other and is also male. Where does one’s postulation go from there? It is the end of the line. And it is about time! -time to put his false, heretical doctrine behind us and move on to the simple reality that place of birth has no place in American principles of national belonging. We are Americans because we were born of Americans, not because we were born within the man-made borders of the United States.

While children of immigrants are totally dependent on being born in America, American children of citizens are totally independent of place of birth. They carry the right of national membership with them everywhere they go on Earth, and it is inherited by their children. That is their American right.  It is a right that they cannot be stripped of, which cannot be regulated or legislated.  It is an inviolable right and it is one they pass by blood inheritance to their children, they being born as new natural members of their parents’ nation.

by Adrien Nash July 2014, obama–nation.com


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: