The Fat-Ass Presidential Eligibility Analogy

The naturalization acts of the young United States changed dramatically in less than a decade, from one extreme to another, and the result sheds light on the impact of the phrase “natural born citizen” and eligibility for the presidency.  What comes to light is the fact that when the requirement was written into the Constitution, its impact on the sons of foreigners was going to be minimal, but in a short eight years, it became maximal, and that impacted multiple thousands of native-born Americans who were not born of citizens.

Initially, under George Washington, the first act required a mere two years of American residency before being allowed to be naturalized and become a United States citizen.  Five years later that was increased to five years, and a mere three years later, to 14 years!

Here’s the problem: under the first act of the first Congress, a married foreigner who had children in America might only have one or two or none during the first two years of his residency, but under the presidency of the second President, John Adams, that two years shot-up to 14 years.  Imagine how many children a man might have in that time, and none of them would ever be considered eligible to serve as President regardless of how patriotic, and even heroic, their life as a United States citizen might have been since they were born and partially raised as an alien born of an alien who was not allowed to become an American for 14 long years.  The restriction never played out since it was changed back to the previous requirement of five years in the Naturalization Act of 1802.

Still, a fertile mother who arrived in America pregnant, might give birth 5 times within five years.  If she gave birth to 4 or 5 sons, none of them would ever be eligible to be President even though the only father that any of them ever knew was an American citizen, -naturalized after five years (while they were all still youngsters).

That father, an American voter, and all like him, would not have looked favorably on the view of the national government and its law that all of his children were alien-born and thus never eligible to be President.  When they reached adulthood, and perhaps went into public service, or elected office, the prohibition against them would have felt like a very unfair discrimination.  That feeling would have colored their view, and that of many others, to prefer to think of natural born citizens are being native-born citizens, even though they may be of opposite origins; one American and one foreign.

Why was the residency requirement so drastically revised from the original 1790 act?  Politics.  Here’s what was passed originally:

1790 Naturalization Act (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization)  1st Congress; March 26, 1790.


This article of legislation allowed an individual to apply for citizenship if they were a free white person, being of good character, and living in the United States for two years.

Upon receiving the courts approval they took an oath of allegiance which was recorded. The individual’s citizenship was also extended to any children under the age of 21, regardless of their birthplace.

Note: the inverse is that if the foreigner was not naturalized, his children remained aliens regardless of where they were born, -abroad or domestically.  That was federal law from the very first naturalization act, and that did not change until the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court opinion handed down in 1898.  It concurred with the district court that native-born children born of domiciled immigrants in the United State were citizens of the United States by the 14th Amendment which required both native-birth and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction.

Since children are not directly subject to federal jurisdiction, that requirement related to the jurisdiction that their father was under.  Was it purely foreign or did the United States have a claim on their allegiance?  Before that opinion, it had been U.S. law and policy to view all children as having the nationality of their father, and it alone.

After the opinion, the executive branch was forced to recognize a child as having a nationality that was alien to its parents, -making the child an American insider while leaving the parents as foreign outsiders, -thus splitting the family, nationality-wise, resulting in a child with dual citizenship and competing nationalities.  Such a situation was political anathema to the founders and framers of the Constitution, as well as a hundred years of federal policy.

~the Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795.  SEC.1  ~Secondly.  He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least,…

Thirdly.  The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States,

Note: “within the limits” is not synonymous with “under the jurisdiction of the United States”.  Since the Wong opinion in 1898, everyone has been brain-dead as to that co-requirement of the 14th Amendment also needing to be met in order for native-birth to confer citizenship to the child of aliens.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”  14th Amendment; Clause 1.

One cannot be considered to be “under the jurisdiction of the United States” if they are only in the United States for five minutes, or five hours, or five days, or five months since they are transient foreigners who remain domiciled in their own nation and subject to its jurisdiction as members of its society, -not American society.

Many an esteemed but ignorant American statesman has conflated being  “within the limits” with being “under the jurisdiction” since the confusing and ambiguous language alternative is used: “within the jurisdiction” -as it is also found within the same 14th Amendment citizenship clause but not related to the issue of being born a citizen.  Instead it is related to being within State borders.

But once the two words “within” and “jurisdiction” were linked together, confusion set in in many minds that failed to distinguish the difference between the two uses; one referring to an area of authority (within a certain territory), and the other to authority itself.  One cannot be under or subject to an area or territory, nor can one be “within” an authority.  One is under or subject to it.

The act continues: (rejecting aristocracy, elitism, and nobility as fundamentally unAmerican and contrary to the principle of citizenship equality.)

“Fourthly.  In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility…

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,.. shall be considered as citizens of the United States:”.

Note: it does not say that only foreign-born children are considered as citizens while native-born children are already citizens.  Instead it only states “the children…  dwelling within the United States, ” as did the 1790 act and the ones that followed in the future.

Native-birth conferred nothing from the federal standpoint even though it conferred State citizenship within the individual States.  There was no authority for the national government to dictate to the States that all of their citizens had to meet the federal standard rule, -which jumped from 2 years residency to 14 years in a mere span of 8 years.  The States had their own statutes or constitutional provisions regarding State citizenship and in general they probably didn’t change at all within that span.  They might naturalize a foreigner into being a State citizens in two years while the federal law dictated a wait of five or 14 years.

Such a citizenship was in flux and might be both State and national or might not.  There were also national citizens via birth within the Federal District or in Federal territory who were not State citizens, -but of course they were babies or children at that time.

1798 Alien Friends Act (An act concerning aliens)

Sess II, Chap. 58; 1 Stat. 577  5th Congress; June 25, 1798

   You can find the full text of this law as a PDF here.


This act allowed the President at any time to order any aliens he deemed dangerous to be deported. This included suspicion of treason or spying. If the alien stayed in the country, they could be imprisoned for three years, and never be allowed to become a citizen of the USA.

[Note: hundreds of loyal immigrants were falsely accused under that horribly anti-liberty act as carried out by the John Adams executive branch.  The next President, Thomas Jefferson strove to undo the damage and havoc wrought by bigoted actions of authorities.  The lesson was that many  men can’t be trusted to fairly judge others without bias.]

Naturalization Act of 1798

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Naturalization Act, passed by the United States Congress on June 18, 1798 (1 Stat. 566), increased the period necessary for immigrants to become naturalized citizens in the United States from 5 to 14 years.

Although the law was passed under the guise of protecting national security, most historians conclude it was really intended to decrease the number of voters who disagreed with the Federalist political party.[1] At the time, most immigrants (namely Irish and French) supported Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans, the political rivals of the Federalists. This act was repealed in 1802 by the Naturalization Law of 1802.

A number of changes were made to the previous naturalization law:

Act Naturalization Act of 1790 Naturalization Act of 1795 Naturalization Act of 1798
Notice time no notice required 3 years 5 years
Residence period 2 years 5 years 14 years

The “notice time” refers to the period that immigrants had to wait after declaring their intent to become a citizen. The “residence period” refers to the period they had to live in the United States before they could become a citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1798 is considered one of the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed contemporaneously in 1798.


The actual meaning of the words “natural born citizen” is a subtle, nuanced sociological insight into human relationships, -not legal relationships.  While the word “citizen” is definitely a legal word, its two adjectives “natural” and “born” and not.  They are from the realm of natural relationships.

The truth is seen by simply substituting the word that has often been interchangeably used with the word “citizen” and that is the word “membership”.  One’s understanding changes when referring to “a natural born member”, -whether a member of an individual family or a member of a national family.

Any mind that attempts to reason-out the legal meaning of what a natural citizen is while attempting to do so from a legal stand-point, will fail to understand that the relationship is not about law, but about membership, natural membership, -not legal membership.  Natural membership is about only one thing: a relationship or connection that is the result of a bond of blood and the sentiment in the emotions of the parents and their off-spring from which such a bond springs.

So in front of every investigator of the meaning of natural born citizen there are two paths; one is a legal path and the other is a natural path.  Choose the wrong one and you will end up in error, -no matter how reasonable your doctrinal destination appears to be, it will be like Swiss cheese when examined up close in detail.  Full of holes.

So the question is: Is one a natural born citizen by some interpretation of law or simply by nature?  Is the correct answer a legal answer based on political opinions based on earlier political or judicial opinions, or is it a sociological answer?  If it is one, then it can’t be the other.  One is right and one is wrong.  Which path is correct?  The legal path or the natural path?

Is one’s national membership the result of law or legal opinion or judicial decision, or legal custom or precedence?  If one’s citizenship is the result of such considerations, then it is not natural citizenship because it is not natural membership but is legal membership, -by legal permission, or allowance, or gift, or grant to one who has no natural right to such membership.

The framers of the Constitution could have worded the eligibility clause differently, like requiring that the President be no one but a native-born citizen, -and yet they chose to reject all alternatives to the one they selected, the one related to natural membership.  The two opposing possibilities boil down to these two simple alternatives:

No person except one born a citizen shall be eligible to the office of President…  or…
No person except one born of citizens shall be eligible to the office of President…

One little word can change everything and with it the the leadership and future of the nation (if the Constitution actually still meant something).  If the President can be anyone born as a US citizen, then the US born son of Usama bin Laden or numerous other terrorists would be eligible to be President.  On the other hand, if no one but children of citizens are allowed to be President, then the national security risk is reduced to those born of fraudulently (insincere) naturalized citizens, and all of the native-born off-spring of aliens are eliminated from eligibility.

The problem with that is that the vast majority of them would be raised as Americans, and no doubt loyal US citizens who are equal in all ways to those born of citizens.  So it becomes a situation where equal treatment concerns are countered by national security concerns which may be over-blown depending on the foreign nation that an immigrant is from originally.

Best case scenario for not excluding all alien-fathered children is a native-born child of an American mother and a Green Card permanent resident Canadian father (who has lived in America half of his life or more) and whose parents raise him or her in perhaps Washington DC to be a loyal and patriotic American.  Such a child would nevertheless be ineligible to ever be President by the Constitution’s limitation.

In the current world, the consequences of that limitation are quite different from what they were in 1787.  Where it once prevented usurpation by a stealth agent of a foreign power, today it may prevent service by an extraordinary leader that the nation badly needs, -or just the opposite as is the case with Barack Obama. If ever there could be an example of divided and non-American values embodied in the U.S. President, he is the poster child for why the President should be a natural born citizen, -born of citizens.

And yet he is not purely an anomaly since plenty of other natural born citizens are just as treasonous to the rule of constitutional law and individual liberty as he is.  The government is filled with them, especially the U.S. Senate, and all of the positions filled by the socialist facilitators in the executive branch who want nothing more than to see the Democrat party supreme over all other parties forever, -just like their counterpart; the Communist Party, is and was in communist countries.  But I digress.

The limitation on the presidency intended by the constitution’s framers can be illuminated by a new and absurd analogy.  The Fat-ass Analogy.  Its title is literally derivative.  It goes something like this:

The Chocolate Truffles Factory Analogy

Suppose that there is an extremely exclusive chocolate factory and it is all automated and controlled from a single control room by a single operator.  And suppose that it uses the most expensive ingredients in the world, including costly truffles from France and elsewhere which are dug up one at a time from six inches below the surface by dogs who are able to sniff them out.  How highly prized are such fungi?  I’ll let 60 Minutes explain:

Truffles: The Most Expensive Food in the World

European white truffles sell for as much as $3,600 a pound, but harvests are down and a black market has emerged — none of which has dampened the appetite for this prized fungi.   One two-pound truffle recently sold for more than $300,000. All of which has brought organized crime into the truffle trade, creating a black market and leading to theft of both truffles as well as the highly valued truffle-sniffing dogs.  Lesley Stahl reports.  Just a couple of shavings of black truffles from France – known as black diamonds – can cost hundreds of dollars in a restaurant in Paris. White truffles from Italy can cost more than three times as much.

So as the owner of the factory, you can’t allow just anyone to be the operator since he or she must sample each batch to ensure quality.  What you can’t afford is for that person to abuse his discretion and sample more than is absolutely needed.  So you need a person with a limited appetite rather than a boundless appetite.  [that is analogous to the office of President, for which you want someone with a limited loyalty, limited solely to the United States and its benefit, -not in addition to a non-American ideology, religion, nation, or leader.]

You are faced with a delicate task of having to figure out how to avoid the wrong person from being entrusted with the operator position.  You can’t write an ad saying “no fat-asses need apply” since they might be one of your best consumer constituencies, and so you don’t want to offend them.  So you are left without a verbal way to convey your strict requirement allowing only a person with a limited appetite.  Thus you have to devise a physical test to reduce the field of candidates to just those you seek.

A brilliant solution presents itself to you; you will simply limit the size of the entry doorway into the operation room.  If you eliminated a full-size entry way into the room then you would eliminate all of the fat-asses who are as wide as a tank  and couldn’t fit through a narrower door way.  They would be equivalent to foreigners who are ladened with the excess “baggage” of foreign upbringing, foreign loyalty, foreign political ideas and ideologies, foreign subservience to dominate leaders and governments, and foreign dependence on government and powerful-union benefits.  That is a lot of foreign flab and appetite for things for which one has no natural right and a social role that is basically that of a dependent child.

Such fat-ass foreigners will be blocked by a doorway too narrow for their girth to pass through.  If it is reduced to only half-width then only their U.S. born children would be able to get through since they would only have half the foreign flab of their parents.

But the plant owner does not trust them and their appetites either since they were raised by fat-asses and are themselves also semi-fat-asses. [i.e., possibly, but not necessarily, semi-foreign via absorption of their parents’ foreign attitudes or appetites.]

You, the plant owner, decide to make the doorway one-quarter size.  That way only those applicants with limited girth and appetites would be able to pass through.  They don’t have any of the flab of foreign appetites since they have lean, mean, patriotic American genes.  They can be trusted with the authority over the entire operation and the power to consume-test its products.  Their appetite is limited by nature since it does not include the love of rich foreign sugary delights.  It is instead grounded in simple American meat and potatoes.   They can be trust to not abuse their authority for the sake of a secondary appetite for things foreign.

Your solution makes perfect sense, as did that of the founders and framers of the U.S. Constitution who barred all who were not born of citizens from serving as President.  That would mean that they would have no foreign attachments, loyalties, sentiments, affinities, or ideologies inculcated via their foreign parents during their upbringing.  They would be American and only American through and through.  But that simple logic could not be openly promoted nor did it need to be since the only candidates that the political parties would consider were gentlemen who were native American citizens.

But there remained the very real need to have a goal that one could aspire to, or at least know that one was entitled to, -that being election to and possession of the power of the office of the President.  That aspirational beacon was an important psychological element in the psyche of all young American boys and men, -knowing that they were equal to everyone else, and were not of some second-class citizen group that was excluded.  But such an aspiration was shot out of the sky by the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it declared that the children of Americans born abroad must be recognized as natural born citizens.

If they were such, then the tens of thousands of native-born sons of alien immigrants could not be also.   One of the two groups had to be the loser because either natural citizens were those born of citizens or they were anyone born within and under U.S. jurisdiction.   If the truth of the matter was revealed by the nature of the citizenship of the 0.1 % or less of American children who were born abroad, then 100 % of those native-born children of immigrant aliens were not Americans at birth and thus also not natural born citizens.  Such a truth was unacceptable to their aspirational needs, and their voting naturalized fathers knew it.

No one knows what went on behind the scenes when the first naturalization act was rewritten in 1795 by the third Congress, but we see the result of something having pushed aside the original wording and intent of the first Congress, -which was comprised of many founding fathers and framers of the Constitution.  Their deliberate attempt to secure the right of all children of Americans to serve as President, regardless of the borders within which they entered the world, was altered to remove that clear eligibility language and render the matter undefined and undecided instead.  Ever since, they have been referred to as “citizens of the United States” but without any hint of what kind of citizens they are.  That way, all of the sons of immigrants could also aspire to be President one day.

That solution worked without a hitch until unseen forces got fully behind the presidential candidacy of an unqualified, unconstitutional candidate who was not only not a natural born citizen but was not even a citizen at all, -not having been born of an immigrant father but of a mere temporary foreign guest.

Since his mother’s citizenship could not be legally transmitted to him, that left only his father’s.  Since his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, neither was his son, and thus was born solely as a subject of Britain by the meaning of, and court opinion regarding, the 14th Amendment.

Unfortunately, it is the policy of the United States to ignore the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, and adhere instead to the long forgotten and unknown policy put in place by the Attorney General at the time that the high court issued its Wong opinion.  He, in effect, threw-out their opinion and substituted his own, and it was not limited to domiciled immigrant owners of a business in the United States but was instead wide-open to everyone as long at they were not Indians or foreign ambassadors.

Did you, a citizen of China, give birth while your plane refueled in Hawaii en route to Mexico City?  Bingo! You just won yourself American citizenship for your child with no damn strings attached!  Isn’t that great!  And you can’t get that anywhere else on Earth because no other country is that brain-dead stupid.  Only us.

We say: to hell with the Constitution, -to hell with the 14th Amendment, -to hell with the Supreme Court and its unmistakeable opinion.  We will march to the long forgotten mandate of an Attorney General who no one even knows ever existed.  We will prove to the world that no one else is as stupid as us.

by Adrien Nash  August 2014  obama–


1790 Naturalization Act (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization)

Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 stat 103.  1st Congress; March 26, 1790.

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 [that being State 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.

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:  Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

You can find the full text of this law here or download the PDF.


The American Homecoming Act

Do you remember that?  It was of great significance at the time and was a social tragedy in need of a solution since racial hybrids were rejected by the Vietnamese society as unnatural and undesirable.  This is very similar to the attitude of the founding fathers when it came to political hybrids or dual-citizens.  They also rejected such a thing by law and especially when it came to the office of President.   Only a single nationality was acceptable; American, -no divided allegiance or dual subjection to two different and possibly hostile nations.

The American Homecoming Act, or Amerasian Homecoming Act, was an Act of Congress that allowed children in Vietnam born of American fathers to immigrate to the United States. The Act was written in 1987, passed in 1988 and implemented in 1989.[1] The act greatly increased Amerasian immigration to the U.S. because it allowed applicants to establish mixed race identity by appearance alone. About 23,000 Amerasians and 67,000 of their relatives entered the United States under this act.


About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: