Pervasive Historical American Ignorance regarding Citizenship

An Obot wrote:

An interpretation by a bureaucrat that doesn’t define the terms does not trump the Supreme Court (and pretty much all other legal authority) which has repeatedly said native born citizens are eligible to be President and hence are natural born citizens. That does not mean that there are certain non-natives who are considered natural born citizens but who are not native born citizens such as Cruz and McCain. The terms are often conflated but I think everyone understands that natural born is a broader term as even under English law some foreign born were natural born. Now, try to find someone who has actually said that the native born are not natural born. Doesn’t exist in any mainstream authority.


The world is full of contradictory beliefs and impressions but either one is wrong and the other is right or both are wrong. If two religions have differing views of mankind, with one believing that humans are gods while the other believes they are beasts, both would be wrong no matter how strongly they believe their view is correct. There is a counter-view to all of the ignorant opinions expressed below by over-confident alpha-male elitists in government and academia, and that is that “natural” means natural and not native.

The defining source is the Constitution and only what it says matters or is definitive; and what does it say? No person except a natural born citizen… No mention of native-born, and yet all of the ignoramuses through the years have pompously declared that the Constitution declares something that it absolutely does not state. They did so because of their ingrained erroneous concept which warped their understanding and recollection of the actual words of the Constitution, as well as stifling any thought regarding what natural citizenship is and what its origin is. They were all saying in effect that the founders of the nation and framers of the Constitution did NOT retain the right to pass their own national membership to their own children.
That conclusion is inescapable from the viewpoint of their orthodoxy since not even one of them mentioned the supremacy of the American father’s right to have his children inherit his American citizenship. That glaring omission means that their warped view was that of imperial Great Britain, -that national soil and national borders were god, and an American’s right to be a member of his father’s country did not exist. No right of citizenship via blood.

Their brain-dead view was that since they were born in America, that fact made them Americans when that fact was actually irrelevant since they received their citizenship as they do still today; via blood “transmission” of the parents’ political nature. THAT is U.S. law, not their blind and ignorant British and colonial common law view. Their thinking never progressed through and past the Revolution to the new America that our forefathers created.  That is provable via the meaning of the word “natural”, but their viewpoint is not provable via anything. It just exists like the term “Indian” exists; a 500 year old error that is still as strongly promulgated as the ignorant and erroneous view that native-birth alone makes one eligible to be President.

Note the repeated use of the phrase: “a native-born citizen of the United States” -which is supposedly quoting the Constitution.  That phrase reveals their abject ignorance and lack of understand of the subject and the Constitution since it requires only that one be a natural born citizen, -NOT a natural born citizen of the United States.  All of the Americans, except Hamilton and one other, were native and natural born American citizens of their home colony, country, Nation-State, or republic.  They did not require themselves to be natural born citizens of a nation that they were proposing but of the 13 sovereign nations that were already in existence.

Consider the short-cut-taking nature of human thought and speech.  We draw generalities and use them as our references.  By a reasonable generality, if 99.999 % of native births are to native citizens, then it makes perfect sense to refer to native-born persons in a synonymous fashion with natural citizens born of citizens since they are essentially the same set of persons.  That is the setting for the environment in which the real figure was that about 98 % of births were to native citizens.  The same linguistic approach holds sway when referring to them and conflating native-birth with natural citizens even though not all natural citizens were native-born since perhaps 0.1 % were foreign born, and not all native-born babies were natural citizens since some were alien-born of foreign immigrant fathers who had not yet had the right to be naturalized and been so.

Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913) (“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”)

[NOTE: there is no such thing as “the native citizen” since the common law allowed the alien-born (about 2 % of births) to be granted citizenship from birth. Also note that the new federal government viewed the alien-born as alien also, just like their father. Only his naturalization provided them with United States citizenship even though state law provided State citizenship for their native-born children.]

United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931) (“The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more”);

United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) (“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)

Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944) (“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, -save that of eligibility to the Presidency”);

“The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America.” Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (1822)

Ex Parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)(Justice Miller Dissenting)(“The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen.)”

“No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statement of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States….”Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States… ” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

[That is almost true but he used an incorrect word and reference. He should have said born “under” the jurisdiction instead of “within”. Only adults are under the authority of the federal government. Birth under American jurisdiction is the key to citizenship, -not birth within U.S. boundaries. One could have been born within the authority but without being born under or subject to the authority by being born of Native Americans (Indians) or foreign ambassadors or transient visitors.]

“It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1840 ed.)  [foreigners are by definition not natives]

“Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary pg. 265 (1843)

“No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M’Culloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)

“No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ….” Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)

“The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen…..Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)

“They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, … Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856)

“One of the qualifications of President of the United States is that he must be a native born citizen, and incontestibly were it not for this provision a naturalized citizen might, if elected, hold that high position.”
White v. Clements, Georgia Supreme Court (1870)

“The qualifications for president and vice-president by this clause are made the same. They must, therefore, be native born citizens of the United States, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, and been fourteen years citizens of the United States, and thirty-five years old.” John King, A Commentary on the Law and True Construction of the Federal Constitution, pg. 206, (1871)

“The President was required to be thirty-five years of age, and native born, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution.” Richard Hildreth, The History of the United States of America, pg. 521 (1880)

“The President and the Vice-President, (and hence their Electors also), are required, however, to be native-born citizens of the United States. Here we have a clear inclusion of all the States as to their native-born, and a clear Delusion of all foreign-born citizens.” Meeds Tuthill, The civil polity of the United States considered in its theory and practice, pg. 83 (1883)

“As the president and vice-president are elected at and for the same time, the right to be chosen to both offices is dependent upon the same conditions (12th amendment). To be eligible, it is necessary to be a native-born citizen of the United States,…Hermann Von Holst, Alfred Bishop Mason, The Constitutional Law of the United States of America” pg. 84 (1887)
Even the authors of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause were ignorant:
“If this amendment shall be adopted, then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who has been naturalized and then become a citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;” Sen. Howard, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)

“The Constitution of the United States declares that no one but a native-born citizen of the United States shall be President of the United States. Does, then, every person living in this land who does not happen to have been born within its jurisdiction undergo pains and penalties and punishment all his life, because by the Constitution he is ineligible to the Presidency? Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2901(1866).
“I told him that I thought a man was eligible for the office of President or Vice President even if he was a citizen of the Territory of Tennessee if he was a native born citizen of the United States.” Rep. Broomall, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.468 (1865)

“The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States.” Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869)

“No one who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution, can be voted for.” Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.552 (1865)

“that the President and Vice President must be native born.” Rep. Clarke, Congressional Globe, 2nd session, 40th Congress. 1105 (1868).

“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865

One would naturally be inclined to view such a high wall of ignorance as being unbreachable, but that was before the truth was discovered.  That truth will likely never find any wide avenue of distribution and will thus remain an obscurity like many other little known truths about American law and the frauds that it is filled with, some of which date back to the almost the founding of the nation.  When wide-spread and entrenched fallacies are viewed as “the law of the land” and the way things are done, it is damn near impossible to bleach out the stains of error.  The whole fabric of American law and legal concepts is badly stained with falsehoods which serve very powerful constituencies, -people who would not sit idly by while the frauds they depend on were purged and bleached out of existence.


by Adrien Nash  August 2014  obama–


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”.

33 Responses to Pervasive Historical American Ignorance regarding Citizenship

  1. arnash says:

    Mario Apuzzo asked: “Would the Cherokee Indians have considered a child born in China to Cherokee parents a native?”

    That is not the right question. Ask the wrong question and you will not find the right answer. The right question is: Would the Cherokee Indians have considered a Cherokee child born outside of their traditional territory to be a natural Cherokee? Yes? or No? By what principle would it not be a natural Cherokee? Answer: None.

    The question isn’t whether or not a non-domestically born child is a native or not but whether or not it was born of native members of the tribe, -or was the child born of outsiders, aliens?

    If it was born of outsiders, then it can never be entrusted with the position of Chief. Only one born of natives can be trusted with that authority, -assuming of course that he was also raised by natives, and preferably among natives.
    One born of natives but then kidnapped, and raised by outsiders among outsiders would not grow up to be a natural member of the parents’ tribe, even though natural born to be such.

    So the supreme issue is not where one was born but to whom one was born.

  2. slcraignbc says:

    Other than the mis-application of the 14th Amendments collective naturalization declaratory born citizen provision being applied to children of alien foreign nationals the ONLY way to be born a “Native Citizen of the U.S.” is to be born to at least one (1) U.S. Citizen parent after the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act.

    Prior to 1922 ONLY a child born to a married U.S. Citizen father was a “native”-natural born Citizen”, (distinguished from a “foreign born-considered as – natural born Citizen” as provided for between 1790 to 1795)

    (But thank you for the citations above, I had lost those some time ago and been searching for them for awhile)

  3. slcraignbc says:

    Assuming you agree that BOTH an “American Citizen” and a “United States Citizen”, I’ll proceed to the folly of quoting Minor v on the subject of a (U.S.) natural born Citizen.

    Justice Waite EXPLICITLY STATED that his Opinion was making NO Judgement on the “identification” of an Article II “natural born Citizen”; to wit; ” … For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens…”

    Now, you seem to be under some misconception that I “identify” the requisite circumstances of ACTUALLY being a U.S. natural born Citizen so that the outcome is different than that which you assert.

    So, let’s start from the beginning once again.

    At the Founding ONLY men were U.S. Citizens [THAT IS INCORRECT. ALL PERSONS WHO WERE STATE CITIZENS, INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN, WERE US CITIZENS] and when a U.S. Citizen man MARRIED a woman the WIFE become a U.S. Citizen under the DOCTRINE of “Coverture” and would continue in that condition throughout the marriage. [YOU FORGOT THE DETAIL OF THE BRIDE BEING AN ALIEN. WOMEN INHERITED THEIR FATHER’S NATIONALITY UNTIL MARRIAGE.] Should THAT woman ever remarry to an “alien” by whatever circumstance she would then become of whatever political character the new husband held.

    The LEGAL FACT continued until the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act.

    Lacking a Constitutional Amendment saying otherwise the only EFFECT upon the circumstances of the birth of a U.S. natural born Citizen is that the TWO CITIZEN PARENTS no longer are required to be MARRIED.

    Also, you continue in the misconception that there is some “unexpressed” LAW operating on U.S. Citizenship which is explicitly disavowed by the 3rd Congress and WAS implicit in the 1790 Act of the 1st Congress;

    ” … SEC.1. 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, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: –“

    ……become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: –“

    and not otherwise: –“

    Now, in the 1790 Act at the moment that a newly naturalized alien became a U.S. Citizen then so too did his children that were present (in the country) with him, whether “foreign OR native born”, no distinctions expressed or implied.

    So, in this circumstance of the Operation of Law upon a person who just became a U.S. Citizen by affirmative CONSENT, in following the process and giving Oath, that Citizenship is concurrently visited onto his children by their TACIT CONSENT.


    That CIRCUMSTANCE was / is a fundamental element of the “uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship naturalization, at birth or otherwise, whereby it is the status of the PARENTS U.S. CITIZENSHIP that DICTATES the U.S. Citizenship of a child at birth, or otherwise.

    Justice Rutledge in the U.S. vs Villato case states the U.S. Citizenship is a COMPACT and therefore DISTINCT from any other Nation or Countries peoples designations under whatever form of government may exist.

    A “Compact” requires CONSENT, be it affirmative by an adult or TACIT by investment into a child, CONSENT is the lifeblood of U.S. Citizenship to the EXCLUSION of BOTH Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis.




  4. slcraignbc says:

    1st line should read ” … Assuming you agree that BOTH an “American Citizen” and a “United States Citizen” are one in the same………..

    • arnash says:

      They were not necessarily the same thing and often were not until the era when naturalization was abandoned by the States. From then on, all Americans were U.S. citizens and not just a citizen of one of the States.

      • slcraignbc says:

        Well then, knowing that you have that view makes it very difficult to reconcile many of your remarks as you seem to use the two terms interchangeably where some statutes and or circumstances hold contradictory effects.

        Upon the Ratification of the COTUS those persons who were then Citizens of a State were then also U.S. Citizens and ALL others were “aliens”, insofar as “membership” in the “body politic” was/is concerned.

        Specific Constitutional distinctions included “Indians, not taxed” and those held “enslaved”, but the “alien” designation did include those “indentured and or bond servants”, vagrants and vagabonds whose conditions were subject to change as well as those newly arriving “foreigners”.

        So I have a difficult time understanding WHO you regard as “American” but NOT a U.S. Citizen.

        Vattel expresses it this way; ” … it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country….”

        Also, strictly speaking, there is NO Congressional Act naming any person an “American”, only a “Citizen of the United States of America”, in most cases in an implicit manner.

      • arnash says:

        Being an American is a sociological designation, not a legal one. AMERICA is the name of our country while The United States of America is the name of our nation.

        Countries are not necessarily nations if they do not have a national government, if it has not yet been formed or has been decimated. Previous colonies were not nations until independence, like Kenya. It was always a country but only became a nation in 1963 (?).

        My repeated complaint about what Vattel famously wrote is that he used the legal term “citizen” when referring to the natural members of a country, but countries don’t have citizens, only nations do. Countries only have members.
        The so-called “Dreamers” are persons brought to America as small children and raised and schooled as Americans but who are not United States citizens. The United States is the only home they have ever known, and English may be the only language that they know. They are Americans in every sense but they are not citizens. Obama is such an American because the 14th Amendment did not provide him citizenship at birth. He is a non-citizen American. His presumed citizenship is 100% a matter of executive policy, -not law nor SCOTUS opinion.

      • slcraignbc says:

        Well, you need to go back and re-read Vattel and his description of Nation and country while acknowledging that his entire work is a “Political theory” of how a “good government’ might be constituted with suggested rules to keep in mind.

        § 121. In the nation or state itself, and in the sovereign.

        The nation in a body ought doubtless to love itself, and desire its own happiness as a nation. The sensation is too natural to admit of any failure in this obligation: but this duty relates more particularly to the conductor, the sovereign, who represents the nation, and acts in its name. He ought to love it as what is most dear to him, to prefer it to every thing, for it is the only lawful object of his care, and of his actions, in every thing he does by virtue of the public authority. The monster who does not love his people is no better than an odious usurper, and deserves, no doubt, to be hurled from the throne. There is no kingdom where the statue of Codrus ought not to be placed before the palace of the sovereign. That magnanimous king of Athens sacrificed his life for his people.4 That great prince and Louis XII, are illustrious models of the tender love a sovereign owes to his subjects.

        § 122. Definition of the term country.

        The term, country, seems to be pretty generally known: but as it is taken in different senses, it may not be unuseful to give it here an exact definition. It commonly signifies the State of which one is a member: in this sense we have used it in the preceding sections; and it is to be thus understood in the law of nations.

        In a more confined sense, and more agreeably to its etymology, this term signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth. In this sense, it is justly said, that our country cannot be changed, and always remains the same, to whatsoever place we may afterwards remove. A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth. But as various lawful reasons may oblige him to choose another country, — that is, to become a member of another society; so. when we speak in general of the duty to our country, the term is to be understood as meaning the state of which a man is an actual member; since it is the latter, in preference to every other state, that he is bound to serve with his utmost efforts.

      • arnash says:

        While its natural to conflate similar terms, that does not make it proper or correct to do so. The progression is from family to clan, to tribe, to the greater society, to country, to nation. One is a member of a society. It and the land it inhabits constitute a country. That country plus the national government and its laws constitute a nation. But in primitive circumstances, a country will exist before a nation and its government is formed, or is destroyed, as happened with the Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs. Also a nation can exist without its country as happened with the nation of Kuwait after everyone fled in advance of the Iraqi invasion.
        Vattel took the normal superficial view of the use of the word “nation” and failed to differentiate between it and country. That is not illogical because everywhere he or you look, one sees countries that are also nations. But we cannot see into the past to before those countries became nations.
        It can be said that a young man owes a debt and duty to his own society and country, but not to his nation. The nation exists to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens, not itself, and it does so by requiring the young men of the nation to serve their country by submitting in obedience to the government of their nation.

      • slcraignbc says:

        So now your critiquing Vattel….???
        [answer: yes, I’m critiquing Vattel.]

        LOOK, the COTUS REMADE the structure of the “American Society” into a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC by the CONSENT of the “WE the PEOPLE”.

        [Why did you put quotation marks around “American Society”? American society was not altered one bit by the ratification of the Constitution. All that changed was that an additional form of government was added, by subtracting some of the sovereignty of the 13 constitutional republics which allied closer together to form a more perfect union.]

        Your “Walden: Life in the Woods” view of “natural law” is a far cry from Aristotle’s, Vattel’s et al.

        [Natural law is real. It has been since sentient life on earth first organized itself as groups of families. The natural law of membership is membership by blood connection. That is the only basis of natural family and natural citizenship recognized by the governments of man, including our own.

        Political ideologies that may bear the name of natural law might follow one of two forms of natural law. one is the law of power or the law of the jungle. The alpha male assumes all rights for himself. the other is the law of Equality,which comes with the Natural Rights that all possess because of their equality which is based on the same origin of creation, -with humanity only having one family tree, not two or three… making no one group naturally superior over any other. That was in total opposition to the Nazi and Eugenics philosophy, -and well as that of the Divine Right of Kings and Islam which view royalty / or Muslims as superior to people who are not.]

        Take a hint from Aristotle’s and Vattel’s titles: “POLITICS” in 3 volumes by Aristotle and “The Law of nature and nature’s God and their affects on the conduct and affairs of men and nations”

        Perhaps one of the greatest documents “defending” “natural law rights” is at the same time one of the most important Political Documents declaring that PEOPLES have the Right to CHOOSE their OWN Government;

        Declaration of Independence
        IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
        The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

        When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
        political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

  5. slcraignbc says:

    If you would read and construe the 1790 and 1795 Acts in whole you’ll find that they REQUIRE that very EFFECT insofar as a U.S. natural born Citizen is concerned, except for the short lived “foreign born-“considered as”-natural born Citizen” provided for in the 1790 Act.

    You’ll note that any child born to a U.S. Citizen father presumes that the birth mother is the wife of the U.S. Citizen father and therefore the wife is also “considered as” a U.S. Citizen under the doctrine of “coverture” which WAS the condition of a woman’s status up to the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act.

    Also note that John Jay was Secretary of Foreign Affairs up to 1789 under the Articles of Confederation and had sent MANY individuals and families abroad in service of the U.S.

    Whether those persons were in mind when writing the “foreign born-“considered as”-natural born Citizen provision” in the 1790 Act can only be SPECULATION with the lack of letters or records of debates on the subject. But it is also worth noting that in not providing for the foreign born-“considered as”-natural born Citizen” status would / could be construed as an Ex POST FACTO Law upon the children of those persons in service to the U.S.

    • arnash says:

      The consideration of the nature of the American children born abroad was not in relationship to only those in service to the nation, but in relationship to all American fathers and sons. They had an unalienable right of full national citizenship which they inherited from their fathers. That was a right that needed to be stated and protected, and so the first Congress fulfilled their duty by doing so. That corrected an omission in the Constitution regarding them, but only is an impermanent way, since it was in fact impermanent.

      • slcraignbc says:

        Well, again it is difficult to construe what you are saying because you use the term “American” which you suggest is not necessarily synonymous with U.S. Citizen, BUT, I did not suggest that the “consideration” ONLY affected those who were abroad in service to the U.S. but was only SPECULATING that that since many had been SENT abroad in service to the U.S. may have been a consideration in the writing of the “foreign-born-considered as-(U.S.) natural born Citizen provision”.

        But perhaps not. I have and continue to look for letters or record of debates on the 1790 Act and the specific provision. Having none ANY opinion on the Act beyond the written 276 words and their EFFECTS can ONLY be speculation.

        An interesting FACT is that the entire AMBIGUITY on the question of who is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen turns on the Statutory Interpretation of the term of words “CONSIDERED AS” within the Statutory CONTEXT that it is used.

        Consider the term of words as if a KEY already inserted into a lock waiting to be turned.

        So turn the key and see what may be revealed.

      • arnash says:

        You’re observation is inescapably significant and correct. It is a fundamental falsehood that Congress possessed any authority to create a sub-class of citizens, -or any class for that matter.
        The primary premise of American nationality philosophy is that all men are created equal, which translates to all citizens are created equal,(-which meant all MALE citizens) -and thus all titles and ranks of nobility had to be utterly renounced when taking the oath of Allegiance and Renunciation. But we retained our ingrained racial and gender-based discrimination. A dirt-poor freed Black male slave had more civic rights than the wife of a Senator or the President.

        Other nations can and have adopted a multi-level approach to citizenship, as seen in Mexico’s constitution which bars naturalized citizens from serving in positions of public trust or national authority, like mayors, governors, legislators, and President, along with the military and police.
        Such a system is not a clear break with the past of Europe and its aristocracy and social hierarchy and feudalism. But it serves a purpose of retaining a rather uniform national identify that is largely ethnicity based and not immigrant influenced.

        As for “considered as”; anyone who speculates that it is not referring to full and true and real citizenship is made the fool by the very same language being used in regard to all persons recognized as U.S. citizens in the naturalization acts passed over the generations.

        Mandating that one be considered to be something is not an informational exercise for the American people but an instruction for agents of the government who have authority that they could used in a wrongful manner that would deprive a person of their natural or legal right.

        In regard to the naturalized and their children, that authority involved things like the right to inherit land in the U.S., the right to vote in elections and serve on juries, and the right of re-admittance when returning from abroad.

        None of those factors were a consideration in what the founders and framers chose to say about children of Americans born abroad in the first Nat. Act. The only consideration for their choice of “natural born citizens” was presidential eligibility, because that is the only subject in the United States that has any connection to those words. They have no other place in American law, and are not words even derived from law but from the natural principle of natural membership.

        When the later Congress changed the words they did so unnecessarily but with a very real consequence which I’ve written about. What was needed to be written was not that they were to be recognized as citizens of the United States (since no person at all had any thought that they were not), but in set-up for the sentence that followed it, -which was in regard to foreign-born children born of foreign-born fathers.

        It had to be stated that they are not to be considered to be American citizens. The RIGHT of Citizenship shall not DESCEND to them from their American father who has never lived in the United States and thus is essentially a foreigner.
        That reminds me of the exposition I wrote titled I believe: American Immigrants and Foreign Natives. You would think that the ambiguous term “foreign immigrant” is redundant but in fact a very small percent of immigrants are Americans who have never lived in America.

      • slcraignbc says:

        OK, we’re getting very close to coming to a meeting of understanding once you are dissuaded from RESORTING to ancient doctrines and natural law and ALLOW the Statutes to speak for their selves EVEN as the CONFORM precisely to the ancient doctrines and natural law, but do SO in the vernacular and nomenclature that the Framers and Founders were FAMILIAR WITH, that is, Statutory Construction.

        In the simple sense a “STATUTE” allows, causes or prevents something.

        In the case of “allowing something” it is often simply a case of ACKNOWLEDGING a circumstance that already exists.

        So, as to “considered as”, in order for one thing to be considered as another thing the other thing must exist, lest the use of “considered as” would have NO meaning.

        We recall that the Ratification “collectively naturalized” ALL of the existing State Citizen, making them each U.S. Citizens.

        Then we read in the 1790 Act that concurrent with an “alien” being MADE a U.S. Citizen then so too are his children, (subject to conditions).

        In order for the Rule to be uniform then it must ALSO apply to those persons who were MADE U.S. Citizens by the collective naturalization that occurred at the Ratification of the COTUS.

        Therefore all of the children born after those naturalizing acts would be U.S. natural born Citizens when born within the limits of the U.S. to a married U.S. Citizen father; and to close the loop on the “considered as” question, were then BEING that something that the “considered as” modifier of the 1790 Act was ‘comparing” the foreign born child of U.S. Citizen parents to.

        With that it WAS / IS ESTABLISHED that the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen CAN be construed under the U.S. Federal Law and MADE enforceable once acknowledged by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction.

        Any arguement that the 1795 Acts REPEAL of the “foreign-born-“considered as”-(U.S.) natural born Citizen provision” somehow annulled the FACT that the birth or U.S. natural born Citizens within the limits of the U.S. was / is an established ongoing circumstance would require the REPEAL of the Article II usage of the term of words, which has NOT happened.

      • arnash says:

        “We recall that the Ratification “collectively naturalized” ALL of the existing State Citizen, making them each U.S. Citizens.”

        We cannot recall something that did not happen. You fail to comprehend the nature of naturalization and the requirements of collective naturalization. To be naturalized is not simply to be included by any means. As U.S. Code explains, foreign-born American children are NOT naturalized, but they are included as U.S. citizens, -citizens by a blood relationship.
        For collective naturalization, three things are needed: 1. a Blood relationship between the outsiders and the insiders.
        That was demonstrated by the Amerasian children of Vietnam, off-spring of U.S. servicemen. They were collectively naturalized because they were kin. No so for the escapees from Cuba during the Murial Boatlift. The were not kin, and were not collectively naturalized.
        2. There has be an authority to authorize a collective naturalization, and in 1788 there was none.
        3. There must be a government to approve or administer the paperwork of such an act and again there was none.
        All talk of the Americans’ collective naturalization of themselves is purely fantasy talk from an ivory tower.
        Insiders do not need to make themselves insiders. Only outsiders need that, and the Americans were not outsiders to their own governments, nor the union of them augmented by a new federal authority.

        In order for the Rule to be uniform then it must ALSO apply to those persons who were MADE U.S. Citizens by the collective naturalization that occurred at the Ratification of the COTUS.

        That is delusional logic. The “rule” was to be a standard set of requirements that Congress was empowered to formulate and which the States were then obligated to adopt in their naturalization process and law.
        Its uniformity was in its nation-wide application, -NOT in a citizenship-wide application. Citizens cannot be naturalized because they are already natural members of the nation. They cannot be “made” that which they already are. They are what they are naturally, -not by being “made” into something new.

        Only those who are foreign need to be remade, but they are not remade by any rule or law of Congress or any State. They are changed into a new political person and member of society via the oath that they sincerely swear on their sacred honor.
        Without the oath, no naturalization takes place because government does not have the authority to naturalize anyone.
        Just as it has no authority to declare two strangers to be married.
        The union and the transformation are both effected via the sacred oaths; wedding vows, and the oath of Renunciation & Allegiance. All of the rest is merely officiation and validation via recorded records. In other words: proof that the change took place via the life-changing vows that were spoken.

      • slcraignbc says:

        Well, I can not decide if you are inherently anti-republican (rule of law) or anti-Constitutional due to “tribalism” or some iteration in-between.

        Even “natural law” has STRUCTURE, a Tree is 1st a SEED a frog is 1st a tad-pole, etc..

        …The Colonists were at 1st mostly English, then many BECAME “Patriots” post the Declaration and a period of great uncertainties during pitched battles of war ensued for a time, during which the Colonies MADE themselves into States under State Constitutions and the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Then, with the aid of the Hand of Providence, the war was won and the Confederation Congress Assembled to strengthen the bonds among the States and the COTUS was CONCEIVED from the minds of those assembled, respecting the history of the conducts and affairs of men and nations.

        There are NO natural or common law precedents without the LAW 1st being acknowledged.

        And at the same time you can not say that all the State Citizens were not collectively naturalized and MADE U.S. Citizens by the effect of the Ratification, for without them becoming U.S. Citizens there would be NO United States under the Constitution.

        Answer: Why can’t you comprehend what I’ve written to help you comprehend that the word “naturalized” has no connection to the Americans becoming citizens of a stronger union? What is with your fetish regarding the word “naturalize”? Do you absolutely have to employ it for some psychological reason that you are unaware of?
        Drop it. It is inappropriate because it has no connection to what actually happened. After ratification, everyone looked around and nothing had changed. Same republics as before with the same Constitutions, but with a new governmental body on the horizon.

        Before ratification they were all citizens of the united STATES of America. Afterwards they became also citizens of The UNITED STATES of America.
        I think that many minds need a substitute word to comprehend:
        from the allied NATIONS of AMERICA to THE UNITED NATIONS of AMERICA.

  6. arnash says:

    On my computer, recent comments are failing to be displayed, perhaps because of excessive nesting of comment. To remedy the situation, I’m posting them myself. Beginning with:

    In reply to Dr. Robert Christopher Laity.

    United States Citizens, what does American mean when speaking of United States Citizenship.

    The moniker “American” in a colloquial term that has NOT been used in any of the Acts concerning U.S. Citizenship.

    It seems what you, and most others miss in the Apologetic of my proposition of Constitutional Law on the specific subject is the FACT the the 1790 Act did indeed “establish an uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship” with the term of words “Right of Citizenship” that takes effect the moment a person acquires U.S. Citizenship, at birth or otherwise.

    The ESTABLISHED “Right of (U.S.) Citizenship” replaces the ancient doctrines of BOTH Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis and devolves to a child at birth or otherwise

    Until I can find a way to express it in a way that it becomes comprehensible to otherwise bright minds it is not possible for others to understand HOW U.S. Citizenship is perpetuated in a manner that produces “natural born Citizens” by U.S. Citizen parents, who each hold U.S. Citizenship independent of the other, and, since 1795, within the limits of any admitted State.

  7. arnash says:

    Robert Christopher Laity
    In reply to slcraignbc.

    Jus soli and Jus Sanquinis have not been replaced. Those born on the soil of a country have that country’s Jus soli while those born of parents who are citizens have the nation’s Jus Sanquinis. The standard of a “Natural Born Citizen” is not the same as the standard for a mere (for lack of a better word) “Citizen”. ALL citizens must have one or the other. Those who have both are “Natural Born Citizens” (100% Jus Sanquinis AND Jus soli), This was affirmed in Minor v Happersett, USSCt. (1875). That’s still “good law”.

    • arnash says:

      In reply to Robert Christopher Laity.

      I just do not get it


      The means of U.S. Citizenship PERPETUATION was ESTABLISHED in the 1790 Act devolving onto the minor children of newly naturalized aliens and the children of existing U.S. Citizens everywhere in the world.

      [Nash notes: That claim is treasonous to American sovereignty. As the sovereigns of the nation, citizens perpetuate their state and national membership via their off-spring who naturally constitute the generation that will replace them as the engine and backbone of the nation. Their children, like their parents, are the natural citizens of the nation.

      It is delusional to the extreme to stick one’s head in the sand and pretend that natural citizenship does not exist. It is no less real than are natural children.
      It is a preposterous lie to claim that a mere law “ESTABLISHED” that with which one was born, namely natural membership in the society and nation of one’s parents.

      The citizenship of existing foreign-born children of citizens was not established by the first naturalization act. Instead, what was established was the fact that they are by nature natural born American citizens and thus eligible to serve as President, and that was based on their RIGHT of CITIZENSHIP by DESCENT.
      Native-born children of Americans WERE NOT addressed by the act, so the claim that a world-wide source of “perpetuation” of citizenship is false.] ~ ~ ~

      Then in the provision that LIMITED its effect by repudiating linkage to Jus Sanguinis.
      [Nash Notes: there was no “repudiation” of any sort. There was a termination of natural citizenship by descent when one is foreign-born and raised abroad by parents who also were foreign-born and raised. Such a circumstance does not produce natural citizens of a foreign nation, namely the U.S., and therefore citizenship does not pass to the third generation.] ~ ~ ~

      And still otherwise intelligent people cling to extra-constitutional concepts of U.S. Citizenship.

      [Nash NOTES that there are NO constitutional concepts of citizenship AT ALL! Citizenship was a matter of the STATES! National citizenship was meaningless unless one were to travel abroad. All aspects of one’s life were State oriented unless engaged in inter-state commerce or national politics.] ~ ~ ~

      1790 Act; ( my numbering for ease of analysis)

      1) 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.

      2) 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:

      3) Provided, that the RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

      1795 Act

      SEC. 3.

      1) And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization,

      2) and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:

      3)Provided, That the RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:

      The RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP is the means of perpetuating U.S. Citizenship and IS the “established uniform Rule” of U.S. Citizenship.

      [Nash NOTES: That is asinine. The established uniform rule was the declared nation-wide criteria for accepting foreigners for naturalization (must be white, free, and 5 years a resident, -and must be male by unwritten tradition).
      That rule was to be adopted and followed by all members of the union of the States, and it was adopted by all of them, and employed in their naturalization process, uniformly.

      The RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP BY DESCENT was established by the Declaration of Independence as a de facto natural fact that was a right of all members of the rebel colonies.
      The Constitution formed a new nation whose members were the natural citizens of the semi-sovereign States that agreed together to form the new nation. The Constitution did not make them citizens. They already were citizens, and all citizens of all States comprised the citizenry of the new consolidated union.
      Law had nothing to do with it. It was an intended and unavoidable consequence.
      If law was necessary, and none was passed, what would be the result? Would the States all be comprised of citizens but the nation be comprised of none? That is what this folly is suggesting. “Mass naturalization”… ridiculous! They were all natural citizens of the nation if born of State citizens. The citizenry of the nation was that of the combined citizenry of the States. It’s a no-brainer.]

    • arnash says:

      In reply to Robert Christopher Laity.

      That sounds very reasonable, and yet it is totally false, and worse, it is treasonous to the sovereignty of the citizenry that the founders fought and died for. They fought for THEIR RIGHTS! The first of which was their own membership in their own Country/State, and their ownership of that membership, -a membership that they could not sell but could pass on to their children at birth.

      Their children were their natural children, and natural citizens as well. All natural citizens by birth were “natural born citizens”, -not just born citizens as were common law, alien-fathered citizens.

      All such citizens were of the same pool, regardless of the location of the dirt their mother occupied when they exited her womb. ALL OF THEM were eligible to be President, as the founders and framers in the first Congress made clear to the nation and State election bureaucrats.

      The “natural citizens” that were NOT eligible were those who were “made” “natural” via the fiction-of-law known as natural-ization. They were made to be new natural citizens but they were not natural citizens by birth, not having been born as natural citizens.

      • slcraignbc says:

        You are just a TOTAL MORON.

        There is NO magic in the word “natural” and there is NO extra-constitutional means to acquire U.S. Citizenship, especially NO Jus Sanguinis nor Jus Soli.

        United States Citizenship is perpetuated by the established uniform Rule that invests the RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP within a persons U.S. Citizenship and devolves to a child, at birth or otherwise, as provided for in the 1790 ET SEQ Acts.

        But go on and live in your fantasy world with no idea what you are saying.

        You call me “treasonous” when you have no idea what Aristotle or Vattel have ACTUALLY written on the subject of citizenship

        You cite SCOTUS OPINIONS without understanding what they are saying as well.

        Justice Waite SPECIFICALLY indicated that he was NOT answering the question of U.S. natural born Citizen, and did so because in Lil’Virginia’s case it was sufficient that she was a U.S. Citizen under the Laws BEFORE the 14th, (1790 Act, et seq,), and the question of the case had NOTHING to do with the Executive Articles and therefore had NO Jurisdiction under the question of the case to address that question further.

        But that too is beyond your abilities to be intellectually honest let alone capabilities to comprehend Justice Waite, ME, Aristotle of Vattel, the 1st, 3rd, 5th Congresses or the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” of A2S1C5 or the unrestrained Congressional power given at A1S8 C4; “The Congress shall have Power … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, … throughout the United States;” at a time when there were ONLY those U.S. Citizens as who were State Citizens at the time of the Ratification of the COTUS, and not otherwise. (see Scott v Sandford).

        Go get another life, you have no understanding of U.S. Citizenship, at birth or otherwise.

  8. arnash says:

    slcraignbc asks:
    What IS the “established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization” …???

    Reply: it is the criteria of acceptance of foreigners who would be allowed to take the oath of Citizenship. In 1790, they all had to be white, had to be freemen, and had to have lived in America for two years, and one year in the State of their application.
    No State could deviate from those criteria and have the citizen that they created be accepted by the national government as a citizen of the nation.

  9. arnash says:

    “The Congress shall have Power … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”

    Anyone without a deeply rooted self-devised ideology, -who is intellectually flexible and not a rigid dogmatists, can read that statement (which is the only Statement in the Constitution regarding anyone’s source of citizenship) and comprehend that it does NOT say: To establish an uniform rule of CITIZENSHIP. THAT ERROR is why you have taken a demented view regarding the actual source of inherited American citizenship.

    Only the ignorant are incapable of grasping the nature of natural membership. By it, you are a member of whatever sort of family you were born into. Or would you claim that you were never a natural member of your own natural family??

    To understand the truth regarding all that I’ve written, one needs only to read the words of one of our founding fathers who was a doctor and a historian. His name was Dr. David Ramsey and he explained the nature and origin of American citizenship, with nothing that he wrote being subject to your denial, although your ignorant views are in total opposition to the truth that he makes plain.

    • slcraignbc says:

      So your dogma confines the word “naturalization” to its VERB sense and totally dismisses the NOUN sense which the Constitutional Clause DEMANDS.

      Or are you saying that the Congress was LIMITED within the ENUMERATED POWERS SECTION of the Articles and could NOT consider Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli or be free devise their own construction of the who, what, when, why, where, how and what or U.S. Citizenship.

      You accuse me of what you are doing..

      Your ideology and responses are laughable.

      When it is REQUIRED by the Clause for the Congress to ESTABLISH an uniform Rule of naturalization it is IMPLICIT that it is of U.S. Citizenship and the word NATURALIZATION is MADE a NOUN by every RULE of grammar and grammatical syntax when “an uniform Rule” is to be made of it.

      • arnash says:

        Read what I’ve already written! As I said, the Nat. acts have nothing to do with any citizenship other than that of foreigners who express the desire to become citizens via the standards determined by Congress and the oath of Renunciation & Allegiance. Congress was given only the authority to determine who was allowed to take the oath across all of the semi-independent States that had their own on-going naturalization law and requirements. The new nation-wide rule was to be that the foreign male was to be white, free, and have the required length of residency. Nothing more. If so, he could take the oath and become a new “natural” American citizen, -having been remade into a natural citizen via natural-ization, which is a noun describing an action.
        He could not serve as President because he would not be a natural citizen by birth. Instead he would be a natural citizen by legal fiction, -the same British law fiction that was a few hundred years old at least.

  10. slcraignbc says:

    Show me where the Congress was limited in their definition of the word “naturalization”, which in it’s noun sense encompasses the who, where, why, when, what and how’s of the political determinations of “making” persons into citizens, at birth or otherwise,

    Well, you can not because you mind is closed to truth.

  11. arnash says:

    Apparently your dogmatic mind fails to inform you that everyone is limited in their use of words by the meaning of words in their own language. They cannot change the meaning, and especially not in a legal document which is and must be written in commonly understood terms.
    Your imperial treasonous mind thinks that Congress is the American Parliament with unlimited power, but the founders viewed Congress in just the OPPOSITE perspective.

    Your silly proclamation about the unlimited power of Congress to make any word mean what you want it to mean is preposterous. But please do define “persons”. Naturalization makes “persons” into citizens, but why have you deliberately avoided the use of the proper label; namely: foreigners???? Immigrant foreigners are not citizens and need to be made into new natural American citizens like everyone else, hence they need to be natural-ized.

    This is not rocket science but you want to make it into quantum physics because your mind is closed to truth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: