Delusional Citizenship Views of the Left & Right
August 9, 2014 9 Comments
PDF version Here: The Delusional Citizenship Views of the Left and Right
The Constitution requires that the President be no person who is not born as a natural citizen, -who is not “a natural born citizen”. The dishonest defenders of Obama’s presidency falsely assert that the meaning of the word “natural” is irrelevant to the meaning of the phrase and can simply be ignored, while their opponents, the neo-nativists, indirectly ascribe imperial powers to Congress with their insistence that he not only must be a natural citizen by birth but must also be a native-born citizen. Thus they distort what the Constitution says by claiming that what it means is that he must be a natural, native-born citizen.
That belief has two quite dramatic collateral consequences. One is that significant numbers of children of foreigners, -native-born common law citizens from birth, are ineligible to ever serve as President, including Obama. That also meant, in the distant past, that no native-born son of immigrants (who would become Americans as soon as allowed) who was a citizen of the State of his birth, would have been eligible either.
The other consequence is one that they refuse to examine and consider because they simply don’t care about it enough to let its ramifications register in their conscious mind. That consequence is the resulting lack of any defining of the political nature of American children not born within American territory.
The British faced a similar puzzlement in 1350, and finally recognized that their common law rule that “all souls born on English land are English from birth, regardless of birth to aliens” was unaccompanied by any statute on the nature of English children not born on English soil. So Parliament passed an act titled: “de Nativis Ultra Mare” (of Birth Beyond the Sea) which declared the children of Englishmen to also be English though born out of the sovereignty of the monarch. In effect, they were deemed to be inheritors of the father’s nationality regardless of where they were born.
The British never again had a problem with understanding that British parents give birth to British children by the natural law of belonging. Children belong to their parents, -their parents belong to their own people, their own society and country, as do also the flesh of their flesh, -future adult subjects born of them and comprising the next generation of subjects to one day replace their aging parents.
Their children, being blood of their blood, inherit not only their biological and physical character but also their cultural and political or national character, as has been the case of all children of all natural groups that have ever existed.
But the neo-nativists say it isn’t so. They return to the confused pre-1350 world when the British statutory law failed to recognize English born children as being English, -by overlooking them completely since they were so rare. It was only the increase of commerce, and English merchants establishing bases abroad where they might live for years at a time, that the situation arose of English children not being born on English soil.
A foreign birth place was one thing, and an insignificant thing at that, but what was not insignificant was when a child was also raised in a foreign land and reached adulthood there. That was a completely difference matter since such a child was not English by acculturation nor, quite likely, by self-identity either. The sovereign of that foreign land then had primary claim to his obedience as a member of his society.
But the issue of merely being born beyond national territory is the issue that remains a subject of delusion that goes completely unrecognized. Many embrace a falsehood that seems in their convinced minds as being essentially a certainty, and yet it is based on two horrible things.
One is the gross distortion of words written in one context, and then dishonestly turned around backwards and reapplied as if they have not been turned around backwards with a big twist of distortion of fact and logic as the result. I speak of the words of Vattel and the famous quote from Minor v. Happersett which echoes his words, both of which are authoritatively quoted in a reverse context as if that were not the case, and yet it is, and their logic crumbles as a result when it is reversed back to its original context.
No authority in written history was more emphatic than Vattel that the children follow the membership of the father, -that citizen fathers retain the right of their children to succeed them in their national membership, in effect as their future replacement, -and that it does not matter where a man’s child is born because that is not a natural factor in national membership, -regardless of it being a legal factor in numerous nations that are former colonies of empires, which included Britain itself. It was, in effect, colonized by the Normans who conquered England in 1066-1068.
Now, between the two prominent opposing dogmas, one allows alien-born common law citizens to be President, while the other dictates that only native-born children of citizens be considered to be eligible, with those dual requirements being their definition of “natural born citizen.”
But either one side is right and the other is wrong, or they are both simply wrong. If one side is capable of resorting to biased, distorted, illogical thinking, then why could not the other side also? There is no reason whatsoever to prevent it since both side come at the puzzle with biased viewpoints favoring their preferred definition of what it really means to be a American.
One side is overly loose when it comes to the issue of national security and the possibilities of an alien-born commander of all of America’s military and nuclear power, while the other is overly anal-retentive when it comes to defining what a true natural American citizen is.
The excess of their view is two-fold. The first fallacy is that the President must be born within American borders, adhering to the inane idea that the event of exiting the womb in a particular place (nation) imparts some form of indelible foreignness stain into the child’s psychology make-up, -or… if that explanation doesn’t fly, then it potentially imparts an invisible mind-control loyalty and subjection to that foreign power due to its “claim” of citizenship which it bestows as a gift to the native-born, -under the reasonable assumption that they are born of immigrants, -not transients, and will grow up there to be fellow citizens.
But the truth that everyone knows is that birth imparts nothing, and nations exert no jurisdiction over minors since they remain under their parents’ jurisdiction until adulthood. So what does that leave as a motive for requiring that the President be native-born? It leaves only two things, and they are sentiment and certainty.
Their sentiment inflates their sense of certainty because they want to believe it and even more, they want to believe it with certainty. They want to be able to point to a definition that is presumptively in writing and Supreme Court approved, but nothing ever written by any Supreme Court has set a definition, -an actual definition, that excludes all but the native-born.
No such definition has ever been established and may never be in the future because it would entail either ruling against all of the millions of Americans born of alien immigrants or it would entail ruling against the natural rights of all American citizens. And it is that angle that needs to be examined since it has an enormous collateral implication that their unexamined dogma fails to contemplate.
That implication is subservience to Congressional power. That view of America supports two falsehoods. One is that Congress was given power that it was never given by the Constitution’s authors, and the other is that they would have surrendered their natural right over their children to the preference of Congress.
Think about this similar possibility: would you, if you were one of them, have surrendered to men of government the right to pass your property and possessions to your children either at death or even before? Would you, upon fashioning a new form of government, have thought is expedient to give it the authority to block your unalienable right to do with your own property whatever you chose?
Well, membership is a possession of sorts, and one that men have passed on to their progeny for thousands of years. In what cracked universe is government involved in bestowing or blocking such a universal right? Would the founders of a new nation have taken their unalienable right to include their own flesh and blood within the national membership that they owned, and (instead of following all of nature and humanity) assigned to government the authority to block their children from being born under the national umbrella that they, their wives, and their native-born children lived under?
Why would they, or you assign to government the authority to cut-off your foreign-born child from its birthright membership in your family-unit’s uniform nationality? Why would you surrender to government a right which would allow it to do what the neo-nativist claim that Congress can do, -which is to declare your own flesh and blood to be an alien by nature (and forever ineligible to serve as President)?
Let’s look at the consequences of both dogmas under a magnifying glass. Imagine this stark hypothetical: In the long history of America before the 1920’s, all foreign women who married Americans were immediately deemed to be American citizens also, naturalized by matrimony, and all wives of a foreign man who became an American by taking the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation, -thereby also became U.S. citizens, -derivatively through their husband.
Suppose you had an immigrant foreign couple with the wife pregnant with twins. One was born one evening near the Canadian border but the second was not born at the same time. The next day the father takes the oath and becomes an American. Later that day he and his wife cross the Canadian border to be with the wife’s parents. They, both being new American citizens, become parents again when their second child is born in the mother’s Canadian childhood home. Both children, sons, upon reaching adulthood, are drafted into the Army to fight in World War I. They are both excellent, patriotic American soldiers who perform valiantly, and as heroes are awarded important medals of valor.
Years later, they both seek to serve their political party and nation by entering politics. They both rise to positions of prominence, one as a Senator, and the other as a governor, and eventually are considered as excellent candidates for the office of President. What is their constitutional status in regard to that office?
They are both eligible according to the dogma of the Left, while according the dogma of the Right, they are both ineligible. The one born first was born as a 14th Amendment common law citizen since his parents were permanent-resident immigrants, while the second was born as an American child born of American citizens, -not aliens, -but neither side will acknowledge that he was born as a natural American citizen.
Instead, they both promulgate their doctrine that he was, or was not qualified based solely on their contrived definitions of what constitutes a natural born citizen. The Left claims that since he was born with citizenship he therefore fits the false handed-down British doctrine that the alien-born were also natural British subjects, -with “natural” meaning whatever one wants it to mean, or nothing at all.
While the Right claims that lacking native-birth, he is, in essence, a possible threat to national security according to their warped illogical fantasy of what comprises foreign alienage.
But don’t try to get them to pin-point exactly what it is about him that is unAmerican and deserving of being disenfranchised of the right of all of his American peers, as well as his younger brothers born in America. In other words, don’t ask them to explain the logic of their view because it contains no logic since it is not based solely on jus soli citizenship (by right of soil) nor on jus sanguinis citizenship (by right of blood) but is instead a Frankenstein Siamese twin monster that requires both American blood and American soil.
Just how bad is such a dogma in the real world? It is so bad that no nation on Earth, including the United States, has ever embraced such a definition of what a natural citizen is, since by nature, all that exists is blood and its relationships, -not borders nor government policies, laws or doctrines.
So if the founders and framers of the Constitution decided that they would surrender (to the Congress that they would create) their universal right to pass their national membership on to their children, when and where and how did they do so, -and why?
There is no such surrender to found anywhere in the Constitution, nor in any naturalization act, nor could Congress have had the authority to usurp that right of American citizens, -a right that it had no authority over. Its social equivalent would have been for Congress to have claimed the authority to declare your natural born children to be only adopted children and therefore ineligible to receive any inheritance from you except by permission of its statutes.
One situation is on a micro-level while the other is on a macro-level but they both are just different aspects of the same policy, -a policy involving the assumption of an authority that no sane person, much less the founding fathers, would have surrendered to men of government.
The 9th and 10th Amendments were written to prevent the very sort of thinking that the neo-nativists embrace and espouse, -an anti-American doctrine, -all while they are believing that it is an ultra pro-American doctrine. But in fact it makes The People subservient to the Congress that they created, -ascribing to it unlimited power over the national membership of natural American children, characterizing them as foreigners in need of naturalization, and does so by throwing out a fundamental right of all Americans, -the right to belong to their parents’ country as fellow natural members, and to serve their nation in every capacity possible. That was a right that real Americans would never have surrendered, especially after they fought a long and costly war to secure their natural rights.
The War of Independence, -waged to be free of unlawful and unnatural government intrusion into their lives, was the end result of the American revolution. This is how John Adams once put his view of the American Revolution:
But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.
Chief of the rights they fought for was self-ownership (versus imperial ownership), and their ownership of themselves extended to their children who were the natural inheritors of their parents’ position in society. And that position was the basis of their membership in their country (the colony or State of their birth and / or residence). Their membership in their native country or land of domicile was the basis of their membership in the aggregate nation of which their home country was a part, a member of a union of sovereign American republics.
Would American parents have surrendered to the will of government the right of their children to be members of their own family? Or their own clan? Or their own town or society? Then why would they have surrendered their right to membership in their own nation? They wouldn’t have, and they didn’t.
The naturalization acts of Congress express in clear terms when mentioning American children born abroad: “the right of descent”. That is the opposite of “the membership granted by permission, based on native-birth” or naturalization at birth. The US government expressly states that they are not citizens by naturalization, -meaning by permission of government statute. So… if they are not citizens by common law native-birth, nor by naturalization, then they are the only thing that is left; and that is:
Natural born citizens.
by Adrien Nash August 2014 Obama–nation.com