The Full Depth of National Sovereign Jurisdiction
July 10, 2014 Leave a comment
Understanding the deep water of full national authority and personal duty.
The jurisdiction under which an alien-born child must be born in order for citizenship to attach at birth is understood by essentially no one.
The shallow thinking is that it merely refers to civil law, but that is pure folly as national sovereign authority far exceeds the authority of State and local civil law, and federal dept. regulations.
It can be compared to a swimming pool, with a shallow end and a deep end.
In the shallow end everyone is permitted and that’s where most spend all of their time, whether they be natives or foreigners; native-born or foreign born, ambassadors or illegal immigrants.
But in the middle only certain persons are allowed to swim. They are all adults, all citizens or permanent immigrants of both genders.
In the deep end, only those swimmers of the middle section who are male are allowed. THAT is the deep end of jurisdiction, and that is what the 14th Amendment refers to, -not the shallow end swimmers.
But in the era of Women’s Rights, it must be presumed that those in the middle section are also under full jurisdiction and thus able to give birth to alien-born children who are deemed to be American citizens.
But no one from the shallow end, limited to it alone, is permitted in the middle section. That includes foreign ambassadors, visitors, guests and students. They cannot give birth to Americans because they are not under the fuller jurisdiction that is required in a sane world.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a sane world, nor a sane country and thus the child of a transient Visa Card student is viewed as being eligible to be President when in fact he is not even an American citizen by the real meaning of what jurisdiction is.
Full jurisdiction that American citizens and lawful immigrants are under includes:
Financial Obligation (Americans are obligated to pay U.S. income taxes on taxable income world-wide while living abroad)
Military Obligation (from conscription age up to 25 years old, American men are required to register with Selective Service)
Loyalty Obligation (full allegiance required and expected vs disloyalty up to and including treason.)
Along with the delusion as to what jurisdiction means, there is its ugly sister which is the presumed significance of place of birth to children of American citizens, and its connection to presidential eligibility.
To grasp the truth one must leave the box of their absorbed concepts in order to understand the reality of what a natural citizen is.
A native-birth requirement embracing the insignificant factor of the location of a mother’s body when her child exits it is not connected to anything that exists in Natural Law.
In nature and in political identification, all that matters is the political character that one inherits from their parents.
Natural citizenship is about nothing other than the parents. Place of birth is only of legal significance for children born of outsiders, immigrants. Not of significance to natives.
If George Washington’s wife gave birth to a child while visiting Maryland, to which colony would it have belonged? Maryland? -or Virginia where he was a native (or resident citizen)? If she gave birth across the border in Canada, would George Jr. be Canadian in the eyes of his parents? Or Virginian like his father? (answer: like father, like son.)
If Sitting Bull had a child that was not born on Sioux land, would it have been an alien to the Sioux nation? Or would it have been a possible future Sioux Chief based purely on native blood? When group belonging is seen in a natural situation, the answer is a no-brainer.
Adding a native-birth requirement to the natural principle of citizen parentage is a logically extraneous and unrelated addition. Like a second little head added to a Frankenstein creation. Or like requiring that Miss America not only be the most beautiful contestant but also the most intelligent. Intelligence doesn’t have anything to do with “Beauty” just as place of delivery has nothing to do with natural membership.
No one can logically connect place-of-birth to parentage, to blood, and neither did Emmerich de Vattel who wrote the Law of Nations (the falsely purported definer of the a term he never used (natural born citizen). He understood that natural membership was purely via patrilineal descent and nothing else. Not the nationality of the wife, nor grandparents, nor cousins, nor soil on which born. The father was everything. He was the HEAD! -and center and spine of the family.
His nationality was the Parent Set. All within his set were subsets of his nationality. If he was American then so was his wife and so were his children. It all began and ended with him, not borders. If born of Americans, then you were by nature an American also. The alpha male head of the household determined the nationality of all under his roof. His family belonged to him and as part of him were incorporated into whatever he belonged to. Including his State and his nation.
Wilted Rose quoted… United States Law Review, Volume 29 (1895)
“It is manifest, then, that by international law, the political or national status of the father fixes that of the child and hence the universally adopted rule, prevailing primarily among all nations, that the children of citizens are citizens, although born in a foreign country. “
“With this principle of international law before it, the same Congress which framed and proposed the constitutional definition of citizenship, [the 14th Amendment] adopted section one of the Civil Rights Bill [of 1866, -written one right after the other) – a measure designed to enforce [what became] the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therein defined citizenship as embracing: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”
” Thus in harmony with international law it was made a condition precedent to citizenship that a person born within the United States, be not subject to any foreign power at the time of his birth, and that contemporaneous exposition of the [14th Amendment] constitutional definition, emanating as it does from those who framed and proposed it, is clearly the most reliable, and proves conclusively that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which is the most important part of the definition found in the constitution, does not mean the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or, (which is the same thing), the jurisdiction of the laws, -but means the jurisdiction of the nation as such, – the political jurisdiction, and is but an affirmative method of expressing the proposition that a person born in the United States must not at the time of birth be subject to any foreign power: thus making it indispensable to citizenship by birth, that the parent [father] be then an American citizen; for otherwise if he be an alien the child will be subject to the country of the father.”
That sounds clear on paper but in real life it lost its clarity, and that is because of residency. Those who travel abroad without moving abroad, while maintaining their permanent residency in their homeland, remain subject to their obligation to obey the laws and orders of their government, just as it remains subject to its duty to defend their interests and persons while they are beyond its borders. But permanent residency abroad changes everything.
It is a tacit statement that one has abandoned their homeland, their membership in it, and its authority over them and has assumed subjection to United States sovereign jurisdiction over them.
It is foolishness to think that such a real-world change of circumstance had no real implications as to which jurisdiction one was actually under.
Just because one has not yet publicly renounced their foreign citizenship and foreign government authority does not mean that they are therefore under it and in subjection to it.
They have a right to choose a new homeland, a new society, and new nation to be their own, but cutting the umbilical cord to the old does not happen in full until the taking of the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation.
The permanent residency of immigrants is the middle staging ground for the final full push into a new political character (citizenship) and the shedding of the old.
So his characterization was not fully accurate in the real world though it is fully accurate regarding non-immigrant foreigners. So the truth about which alien-born children are legally U.S. citizens is determined by the nature and status of the parents’ presence in the United States. Are they members of American society or are they still only members of their own? What makes the difference is Time, presence, and participation. A Visa Card vs. a Green Card.
The Supreme Court three decades after passage of the 14th Amendment decided that domiciled immigrants are in fact subject to American jurisdiction, and thereby over-turned the policy of the federal government by ruling in favor of the citizenship bestowed by the States on their foreigner-fathered native-born “sons of the soil”.
The common law continued on after the war of independence began, with the native-born deemed to be new State citizens as long as the parents were not traitors to the revolution.
The native-born had what was erroneously labeled a “birthright”, actually a legal right of membership in the country (colony) of their birth. They were not born as foreigners and thus had no need of naturalization although alien-born.
And what did native-birth bestow? State citizenship. Via it, national membership was obtained across all other States, but the federal government was not a State and did not have to recognize any and every State citizen as being also a citizen of the new nation.
It had its own internationally-oriented policy and it did not recognized dual nationality, dual allegiance and divided sovereignty.
That meant that the alien-born were not citizens of the federal entity known as “The United States of America” even though they were State citizens and thus citizens of the union of State republics.
They were 13 separate countries bound together by a central federal hub with its own nationality law dealing with foreigners, (the naturalization acts) unlike the States which had their citizenship policy as part of their constitutions. The U.S.A. didn’t so it’s executive branch was not bound by anything and everything that the States permitted.
Wilted Rose said…
As an aid to understanding citizenship in the United States before the Civil Rights Act of 1866, here in quotes is an opinion by Attorney General Mr. Cushing (written no later than 1857), as cited in the Report of the Royal Commissioners for Inquiring into the Laws of Naturalization and Allegiance. Page 18. Printed in 1869.
Besides the rights of national citizenship conferred by naturalization, there is a minor form of state citizenship.
“The conditions of citizenship in the United States and of any one of the States are not identical; that is to say, it may happen that by the laws of a given State a person shall be a citizen thereof and still not be a citizen of the United States.
Nor does it follow, because he is a citizen of a given State by the very letter of its laws, that therefore he is of every or any other State. Persons may be, and in fact are, citizens of the State of Massachusetts, that is, invested with all the rights, political and municipal, which its institutions can bestow, without being citizens of the State of Virginia or of the United States. [such a citizen would be one who was not white]
There are certain material advantages attached to citizenship.
“Many ordinary municipal rights are, by other laws, capable of being enjoyed by citizens alone: such as the ownership of merchant ships, the command and in part the manning of such ships, and the purchase of public lands by preemption. To this may be added that in many of the States, the right to own land within the same is, by their laws, restricted to citizens of the United States.”
The report continues:
By the Laws of New York, no person can hold a civil office, or vote at elections, who is not a citizen of that State.
The right of voting at elections is restricted to national citizens in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, California, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Maine, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Utah.
In Indiana and Wisconsin, aliens who have declared their intention to be naturalized are admitted as electors.
In the other States all State citizens are voters.
The term of residence required varies from six months to two years, and in some States there is a property qualification. [the national naturalization act sets the federal minimum residency, but one could become a State citizen sooner if a State had a shorter required residency period before taking the oath.]
Most emigrants therefore get themselves constituted citizens of the States in which they settle as soon as they can.
The conditions on which State citizenship is conferred vary greatly in the different States. In the more populous States the admission is restricted by regulations of greater or less severity, while in some of the Western States, and States where the capital and labour of emigrants are eagerly welcomed, the terms on which citizenship is granted are made as easy as possible. The result is, that aliens are often in the anomalous position of being citizens of a State for some time before they can become citizens of the United States.
Wilted Rose said…
” It had been previously decided in America that natives of Great Britain were aliens there, and incapable of inheriting lands in the United States. Kent defines an alien to be “a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States;” but this definition is not sufficiently strict, for the son of an alien, which son is born in the United States, is also an alien.” (written the same year as the Civil Rights Act.)
Mario wrote: “”McClure and Minor…prove that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a citizen unless naturalized after birth by an Act of Congress or treaty.”
Again with the absence of any context for the word “citizen”. He fails to acknowledge that there was not just one single citizenship but two.
States remained sovereign over all persons within their borders, especially those born within them, whom they deemed to be new citizens regardless of their immigrant father not yet having had time or opportunity to complete his naturalization.
The federal government was a whole different world. Who the Departments of Justice & State deemed to be citizens of the nation was up to them and not up to the States, and they adopted a policy that rejected dual citizenship as repugnant to American sovereignty.
Two citizenships. Discussion is just a miasma of ambiguity when both sides continually fail to distinguish which it is that they are speaking of. And that explains the talking past each other that has gone on for over 150 years.
In 1811, Publius (the pen name two decades earlier by authors of the Federalist Papers in support of the Constitution, being the then deceased Alexander Hamilton, sitting President James Madison, & long retired John Jay (former Supreme Court Chief Justice)) wrote for public publication regarding the McClure case:
The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. [native-birth citizenship] The law of Virginia, of 1792, does, —for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” are deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil.
An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”
A modern, well-protected President of the United States would not write such a thing under a pen name since he would not feel any need to hide his identity, but Presidents up through Lincoln had little personal protection or isolation. And John Jay could end up being murdered over a political opinion, as happened to David Ramsay.
“The Jay Treaty with Britain and its repercussions: the Democratic-Republicans denounced it. The failure to require compensation by the British for many thousands of slaves liberated and resettled outside the U.S. during the Revolution “was a major reason for the bitter Southern opposition”.
Jefferson and Madison, favoring alliance with the French, and fearing a commercial alliance with aristocratic Britain undercutting republicanism, led the opposition.
The Senate ratified the treaty by a 20–10 vote without a vote to spare.
Democratic-Republicans were incensed at what they perceived as a betrayal of American interests, and Jay was denounced by protesters with such graffiti as “Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won’t damn John Jay!! Damn everyone that won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!!!”
Jay complained that he could travel from Boston to Philadelphia solely by the light of his burning effigies. One newspaper editor wrote, “John Jay, ah! the arch traitor – seize him, drown him, burn him, flay him alive.”
When the Publius letter was published in a newspaper that had also published the Federalist Papers, Jay had been quietly retired to farming for ten years, and had stayed out of politics altogether, so it seems that President Madison must have authored it, since Alexander Hamilton had already died due to his duel with Aaron Burr.
After taking note of his reference to “the act” I had to reevaluate my previous self-contradictory assumption which was based not on the Naturalization Acts but on policy alone. I had suspected that the Congress had accepted or ignored the tens of thousands of foreigner-born common law State citizens in authoring the act, and had not meant to include them in its exclusion of children of immigrants who were “not dwelling within the United States, differentiating between those who had never dwelt in the U.S. along with those who were brought here but were no longer dwelling here when their father naturalized, having previously returned to Europe.
I suspected that those born here, with native-birth and State citizenship, might be recognized as American common law citizens by the federal government regardless of being born before their father became an American. But Publius (probably President Madison) clearly rejected that possibility. That makes it clear that only American parents could produce American children in the eyes of the national government. No dual nationality was recognized.
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 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, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least,
-and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. [no acknowledgement of native-born children or common law State citizenship]
And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: …
After further consideration, it occurs to me that the view expressed by Publius and promoted by Mario and Wilted Rose has to be taken as accurate, and that my suspicion that the native-born children of aliens were simply ignored by the acts can be seen to have a serious flaw.
The direct statement by Publius, along with the fact that the age of majority mentioned in the acts was not 18 but was 21, strongly suggests that the thinking of the authors of the naturalization acts in using the qualifier of only children of foreigners “dwelling within the United States” (would be deemed to be citizens), had in mind the very real possibility of very homesick teenage sons returning to their European homeland, -to their grandfathers and grandmothers, their aunts and uncles, their cousins and friends who’d they’d grown up with in their home town or city.
I’ve seen that very up-close and personal in the case of my own adopted sister who was not an orphan but whose third-world mother was extremely poor. Adopted at age ten, as would be similar to many sons brought to America with their emigrating parents, the desire to return to their homeland, like hers, might have been very strong for some if they had no love for their parents and no siblings of similar age nor close American friends.
So the acts were meant to bar American national citizenship from children who never emigrated from Europe and those who returned since they had chosen to not become Americans. That understanding confirms Mario’s assertion that the absence of any mention of native-born children was not due to some universal assumption that they were born as citizens. Even though they were born as State citizens, the federal government was under no constitutional nor Congressional mandate to recognize the alien-born as American Nationals in the context of international relationships.
If a son of an immigrant traveled to Europe, it did not matter whether or not he was born in Europe or born in one of the States, he was viewed by the State Department as a foreigner because he was the son of a foreigner and inherited his father’s nationality. Until the father became an American, his U.S. domiciled children remained aliens regardless of the provision of State citizenship to them by the State in which they were born.
But that distinction between State law and national law does not help solve the NBC debate because the eligibility clause does not require that one be a natural born citizen of the United States, but merely “a natural born citizen”, period. That term referred to a person’s status in the colony / State republic of his birth, -whether or not they were born of State citizens or born of aliens.
The debate needs to shift from the paradigm of what the definition of a national natural born citizen was to the definition of the States regarding their native-born citizens. Did they distinguish between them based on parentage or not? Did “natural” mean nothing in the common vernacular, being merely a superfluous appendage inherited from British parlance?
The framers of the Constitution used the word “natural” in its common language sense and not in the sense of the rejected British nationality system which included it in the bastardized term “natural-born subject” (long since totally abandoned) which in time came to be applied to all British subjects .
noun “Citizen” + adjective “born” = born citizen.
noun “Citizen” + adjective “natural” = natural citizen.
noun “man” + adjective “old” = old man
noun “man” + adjective “wise” = wise man
Man + wise + old = wise old man. Not an idiom nor term of legal artifice
Citizen + natural + born = natural born citizen. Also not an idiom or term of legal artifice
adjective “wise” + adjective “old” = nothing (wise-old)
adjective “natural” + adjective “born” = nothing, (natural-born) -not a literal legal term nor a legal term of art since it specifies nothing specific.
“natural-born” + “subject = two hyphen-linked adjectives, plus a noun; -it was a term of art since it specified a British subject by any origin. -whether by procreation or by common law or by naturalization).
“natural born” = two separate adjectives, -not a term of art since it also specifies nothing.
Citizen + natural = natural citizen by birth, which = natural born citizen.
Natural citizen = a citizen born of citizens.
Born citizen = natural citizen or alien-conceived common law citizen.
The President must be a “born citizen”, -but which kind? Either one?
No. A natural born citizen. Not an alien-fathered nor alien-born citizen.
The President must be a “natural citizen”, but which kind; a natural citizen by legal fiction or an actual natural citizen by birth?
He must be a citizen-born citizen, -a natural citizen by birth, -born as a natural citizen, -a born natural citizen, i.e., a natural born citizen. (not an artificial law-made “natural” citizen by legal fiction.
It’s strictly common sense.
That is the only logical way to view John Jay’s underlining of the word “born” when he wrote to George Washington. But it seems to be totally unprovable, ‘though it can’t be disproven either. It is out on a limb, from out in left field, but it makes perfect sense because of the fundamental doctrine, both British and American, of full citizenship equality, (no higher and lower classes of citizens, no American aristocracy and nobility; all are equal) -as well as the root meaning of natural-i-z-a-t-i-o-n.
Plus the fact that membership by blood was the only membership that the national government accepted. Common law alien-born citizenship was rejected.
All citizens were equal, except when it came to the presidency. He had to be born of American blood, -not foreign.
Just like an heir to the throne had to be born of royal blood, not common (even though it might be foreign royal blood, -the very opposite of the limitation put in place in America for the presidency).
Jay spent close to 40 months serving abroad in Spain, Paris, and London, accompanied by his much younger wife. There is no reason so assume that she did not have a son or daughter or two or three during that long period of time.
How would they have perceived such children? As extensions of themselves, -as wholly and solely American? Or as Spanish, French, or English?
Would Jay have looked at his speculative foreign born sons and seen future foreigners? -a Frenchman or a Spaniard or an Englishman or only Americans?
If he had a son in New York and one abroad, would he have viewed the latter as non-American, or less American, and untrustworthy of the highest office of the land?
Or would his foreign delivery be an irrelevant factor and a non-existent memory for such a son?
Would he be “born with foreign allegiance”? or with a destiny to only be an American?
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said… ~Adrien Nash,
Your John Jay example regarding his wife having children abroad does not prove your point. His children would have been born to a foreign ambassador and therefore under English common law, the law of nations, and American common law reputed born in the United States. All this children born to him and his wife in a foreign country while he was acting as an ambassador were reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents and therefore natural born citizens.
Mario, you missed the point, which was not the question of what nationality his children would be, but what he, as an American, would have thought of the very same sort of American children as his own, children of his peers, being deemed aliens? Being “reputedly” born in the U.S. is purely an imaginary legal fiction that has no bearing on reality. What was the actual fundamental law of nature regarding which people and which nation such foreign-born children belonged to? That’s the question.
You, as a non-parent, have no concept of what he would have felt about the matter, but I can say with certainty, it would not have followed your line of thinking.
What you state takes the view that his only attitude would be a matter-of-fact indifference. “I’ve got mine covered, tough luck about yours my friend, -there is simply nothing in the world that we Free Americans can do about it, after all, the doctrine and policy are handed down by Almighty Government. So just accept that the flesh of your flesh is an alien to all of the rest of your fellow Americans. An outsider. Not one of us, -a foreigner to the group to which you belong. May as well give him up for British adoption unless Congress is so benevolent as to grant children like him some form of inclusion as they may see fit.
Since your child inherited zero rights from you, you can’t claim that he is naturally automatically an American . You have no unalienable rights regarding your children. The government decides whether to accept or reject your child, and you just bow down to its decision as a subservient subject of its almighty will.” ~ ~ ~
Mario, Wilted Rose shared a quote that showed that British subjects born in America could not inherit as they were viewed as aliens. That was written in 1866.
Do you not grasp that Britain would have long had the same policy toward American children born on its soil? You think that Britain would have naturalized them at birth as new British subjects, but they would not have deemed them to be British subjects because American sovereignty covered them. They would have excluded them from the British common law native-birth policy and they would have been barred from inheriting British property as aliens. That’s international tit-for-tat reciprocity. (that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.)
I bet there’s a quote somewhere that verifies that.
That would prove that they were not aliens, foreigners, British subjects by birth nor stateless persons but by birthright were born as American citizens, natural American citizens, without need of any government permission and fully eligible to be President after living 14 years in the United States and reaching 35 years of age.
The status of an English “natural born subject” could be achieved via a low degree of parental allegiance in the case of a native-born.
In the US, the same low degree of parental allegiance, in the case of a native-born, makes one a born “citizen of the United States”.
Ergo; an English “natural born subject” via parental local allegiance is the equivalent to a US born 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States”.
The use of the words or term “natural born” in the US model was a qualifier for one who was already a citizen who already was eligible for property inheritance and other rights and privileges, to be electable for president of a republic and one with the highest possible allegiance to the US.
Like chalk and cheese, not the same meaning and was never intended to have the same meaning and never will have.
Let’s make it even clearer from a 1st century perspective:
both cases involve foreign immigrants.
Both are subject to the national authority.
Both must obey all orders of the national government.
Both must not be disloyal to the nation.
Both can be tried for treason.
Both can be conscripted into the military if of qualifying age and gender.
Both must pay all taxes assigned to citizens and subjects.
Both obtain citizenship at birth because they are anticipated to grow up to be normal members of the nation.
Neither are natural members because they were born of aliens.
Britain had seven kinds of inhabitants: slaves, indentured servants, foreign ministers, aliens, aliens made Denizens by the King, alien-born children made subjects by native-birth, and natural native subjects and their children. Both of the latter two groups were known as natural-born subjects.
The United States had no Denizens but did have Native Americans, transient visitors, and eventually natural born citizens eligible to be President.
Unlike in Britain, children of aliens born in States and considered citizens were not known by those who engaged in actual thinking as natural born citizens but simply citizens, or citizens of the United States, or native-born citizens.
The word “natural” was not rightfully attached to them except in the imagination of those who wanted it to. They included most or all of the immigrant community, and they had voting power after naturalization.
They despised the fact that all of their children born before taking the naturalization oath were banned for life from ever being eligible to serve as President.
After all, it was not their fault that their father was not yet a citizen when they were born, but they were disenfranchized from an almost universal right because of it.
And THAT was why the wording of the 1790 Nat. Act had to be changed. The voters who resented its implication that only citizen fathers could produce children eligible to be President viewed such a federal position as very politically incorrect and in need of not being stated openly, since it killed the dreams of tens of thousands of patriotic American sons.
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.
Seven conditions must be met, and none of them involve the exercise of sovereign power by Congress. Congress is not even a part of the picture after having written the rule that must be adopted by the States as their law and practice when they would see fit to naturalized a foreign resident.
Congress had no authority over the regular practice of domestic naturalization, nor over any American citizen and his citizen children.
Mario must resort to phrase distortion to claim that American children not born within U.S. borders are aliens and not “real” natural born citizens, and yet ignore the fact that the very same words (shall be considered as…”) mandate that the children of naturalized men be understood to be U.S. citizens following his naturalization.
That means, by his claim, that they are not “real” U.S. citizens but only fictional citizens, yet having all of the rights of citizens.
But no such class as fictional citizens exists, nor a fictional natural born citizen class either.
“What a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
by Adrien Nash July 2014 obama–nation.com