The Presidency, and Dual vs Single Family Nationality

There are two completely different systems for assigning nationality to children.  One is the natural method which requires no human devised rules whatsoever, while the other is an artificial, arbitrary, unnatural method reliant on geo-coordinates,  man-made and natural boundary lines, and a pregnant woman’s location within those lines at the time of delivery.

Up until the modern era, the natural consequence of the Natural Law method was that a husband, being the head of his submissive and obedient wife (per the Judeo-Christian ethic in conformity with the ever prevailing human custom of male dominance) was the determinant of which people she belonged to.  She may have belonged to a different people or a different nation by birth, but that prior association was superseded when she surrendered herself to her groom in Holy Matrimony and became a part of him and his world, -abandoning her former name and her former role as a member of her own family and people and nation.  She thus became “one” with her husband in every sense, including nationality or tribal membership.  She belonged to him, and through him belonged to his group.

A perfect example in the realm of religion would be if a Jewish woman married a devote Islamic man.  She would not enter such a marriage except via surrendering herself not only to him but to his religion as well.  They would never be nor appear to be a couple having two different religions.  She would never, ever say: “I’m a religious Jew but my husband is a devote Muslim.”  Rather, she would become a devote Muslim also.  They would have a single family religion, not two.  There would be uniformity not duality.  When you came across them you would not think: “There’s a Muslim husband and his Jewish wife.” but would instead think: “There’s a Muslim couple.”  And that is because she changed.

In the preceding era of nationality assignment, (which lasted like forever almost) it was the same with nationality.  The wife’s foreign nationality was erased by that of her husband and she became a reflection of him, having the equivalent of a nationality transfusion with his his national blood so that they matched and were of the same nationality blood-type.  That is where family nationality began, but not where it ended, because it extended to their progeny, -the next generation, -the children born to them.

They were born with the same nationality blood-type.  They were not born with two blood-types which included a foreign one from a foreign mother because she was no longer foreign but was instead the same as her husband.  Her transformation, -or naturalization, was known by labels like automatic derivative naturalization by marriage, with her nationality being derived from his.

Since they were of only one nationality, their children were also.  The wife and children derived their nationality from the head of the family.  They did not possess independent citizenship but a singular family citizenship since the family was a homogenous unit with no citizenship divergence (unless a child was a foreign orphan that they adopted).  If you knew what nationality the father was, you did not need to ask what nationality his children had because it would only be his.

They were like the off-spring of every species in the natural world; they inherited the nature of the parents, same genus and species.  And were like the sprouts springing up under a seed-bearing tree.  You know what they are by looking at the parent tree.  Life does not produce diversity in its off-spring.  No one has nor ever will see an African father followed by his natural children who include Chinese, Caucasians, Indians, Polynesians, etc.  Instead, they will look like him because they are of him.

It was the same with nationality.  It was passed from father to family like a genetic trait.  Low-brow, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing father?  Don’t expect to ever see genius children from him no matter how many he has because they will take after him.  One and the same.

That was how the whole civilized world understood nationality, -at least up until the Norman king William crossed the English Channel and conquered England in 1066-68.  His Norman subjects continued to give birth to new subjects of their king, but what of those Englishmen across the channel?  They were not his subjects by a natural national blood connection because they were not French.  What of their children born under his rule?  They would have been the natural subjects of the king he overthrew.  So how could they be integrated into his kingdom as fellow equal subjects?  They were born of English blood and not French blood so by natural law it would have been impossible.

It was probably at that point in Western history that natural law was given the boot, and in its place was substituted human law as the English courts, in submission, held that any child born under subjection to the king was his natural subject.  And how was such subjection determined?  By inheritance from one’s father?  By that blood connection which put the young under the same obedience as their father?

No, but by the simple fact that they were born within the boundaries of the new king’s dominion.  In other words, they belonged to him because they had no choice.  They were the product of his kingdom and all of its products belonged to its king.  Presto!  Nationality assignment switched from inheritance and blood connection to mere birth location.  In time, that unnatural criterion was advanced to such an unnatural degree that the king’s courts declared that even children of mere visitors who couldn’t recross the channel before giving birth belonged to the king also.

That of course flew in the face of the father’s rights and his children’s natural right to inherit his national membership, -as well as the “right” of his king to claim his subjects’ children as his subjects.  It created a conundrum for foreigners after the initial era of harmony when one king ruled both lands.  After Normandy was separated from England via the defeat of the army of William’s English line, then the birth of children to cross-channel visitors became a philosophical problem, -one for which there was no logical answer.  And that is because it contained a self-contradiction.

The king’s courts (and later his Parliament) established a set of nationality rules which became part of the common law, but within those rules was a logical determination which came with an unacknowledged self-contradiction.  It started with acknowledging that the children of foreign ministers could not be claimed by the crown since they resided under the sovereignty of the monarch they represented.  Their England-born children followed natural law and were the same nationality as their father.

It was the same with the second category that constituted an exception to the general rule of subjection to the crown via birth within its dominion.  That was the rather arcane category of children born to foreign invaders occupying parts of the king’s domain.  Their children were born within his kingdom but not born under subjection to English law or royal authority.  Thus they were not subject to the king.  Subject how?  Subject through their foreign fathers.  Since the invading fathers were not subject, neither were their children because the children followed the subjection and nationality of the fathers, -and the place of their birth (not in their own homeland) was irrelevant because only blood was relevant.

So the English courts had devised a system of nationality in which two exceptions had to be carved out in order to maintain a semblance of sanity and reasonableness.  But those two exceptions to the general rule disprove the general rule’s basis which would have been that mere birth within the king’s boundaries was all that was needed to be rendered his subject for life, but since an explanation had to be given for why the children of foreign ministers and invaders were not subjects also, the criterion of subjection had to be added to the element of place of birth.

The bastardized English system had embraced a doctrine that allowed and legitimized duality of nationality within the family, -imposing a second nationality into the family via the children born of foreigners within British borders, thus rejecting the pure naturalness of natural law membership passed from parents to children.  Uniformity remained for perhaps 98% of the population since their children were born of British fathers, but those born of foreign fathers were both foreign and British since they inherited their father’s nationality by natural law and were recognized by his country as countrymen.

The switch from natural law and the blood of English fathers to the artificial factor of native-birth as the criterion of being English made sense whenever it was first instituted, -which, if it were at the time of the Norman conquest, resulted in perhaps half of the babies born to the king being “foreigners” (French) in the eyes of the English, and half being born in England of Englishmen.  But centuries later, the natural and previous status quo had returned, and very few babies, percentage-wise, were born to outsiders, -but the “new rule” (then hundreds of years old) instituted to accommodate the off-spring of fathers from two different nations) continued on as the law of the land.

But that law contained the proof of its own illegitimacy since its exceptions followed the original natural rule of natural membership, by which the children were cast from the same mold as the father, spouts of the parent tree, the same image as that of the parents, flesh of their flesh, and members via their membership.

The invading fathers who produced children did not have children with dual nationality, -not in their eyes, nor those of the British because Natural Law openly prevailed, and the English rules & authority, and English common law nationality assignment was meaningless in its face.   The Primal precluded the artificial.  Blood trumped borders.  The Law of Nature and its principle of natural membership superseded the rules of men.  Reality supplanted artifice.  And that was what happened when the patriots of America met to hammer-out a new constitution of government for the 13 sovereign nations that were liberated from slavery to British tyranny.

They rejected the whole damnable unnatural, contrived, concocted, convoluted, and confused system of British nationality assignment and returned to the simplicity of natural membership by blood relationships.  But that was not done openly.  Rather, it was manifested almost covertly, and that was because the semi-sovereign States did not have a motivation to all follow the lead of the nation’s leaders.  Instead, they continued to provide citizenship to children born within their borders, even though born of foreigners.  That was a workable approach that had always been the rule as part of the British empire, but as part of the union of the American States, it had a draw-back, -not at the State level but at the national level.

The leaders of the nation, the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution, and members of the first Congress ever, had come to see the world via their wide-travels in a much wider perspective than folks who had spent nearly their whole life in their own colony / State.  They viewed the issue of nationality from a national perspective, meaning actually an international perspective.  It was intimately tied to the issue of national sovereignty.  Was it to be shared with Britain or any other nation when it came to children of Americans?

It would have to be shared if children born in America were acknowledged by the United States Government to possess dual nationality and not the one singular nationality of the family’s father.  But there were two forces at work.  One was the rejection of shared sovereignty, which was necessitated by the British rejection of shared sovereignty when it became autocratic and tyrannical against the colonies instead of becoming willing to share sovereignty with them.  Well, what was good for the goose was good for the gander, and so the Americans came to realize that sovereignty could not be shared with the arrogant British so they would have to declare their total independence and assume full sovereignty for themselves and their posterity.

After the revolution’s victory, they were not about to share with Britain jurisdiction over children.  There would be no half-British, half-American children.  They would be either one or the other, and it would depend entirely on the nationality of the father, -the head and face of every family.  He alone represented all that were his.  His children could not be claimed by a government that was not his government, -by an authority that he was not subject to.

To enforce that position of the United States Government, the first naturalization act ever written (1790) expressly declared that children of foreigners who naturalized into American citizens were considered U.S. citizens just like their father, and were so through their him if dwelling in the United States.  That declaration did not differentiate between children except by residence, -not by birth place.  Even if born in one of the States and provided citizenship in it from birth, the national government nevertheless considered them aliens like their father until he became an American.   That was an expression of Natural Law because it maintained the unity of the family nationality.

The native-born children of aliens were considered citizens in most or all of the States under their first constitutions and nationality statutes, but that citizenship was not honored on the international level by the United States Department of Foreign Affairs (which preceded the Department of State).  To the executive branch of the national government, dual-citizenship was unacceptable within a family and so children possessing both State and foreign citizenship were viewed as foreigners only.  The States had the old British system along with the even older system of natural law membership, but Congress and the Executive branch did not recognize both.  It only recognized the nationality of the father and the government of which he was still a member.  While he was still subject to it, he was not an American, and neither were his children.

That first nationality act also expressly mandated that Americans born under the authority of a foreign power were to be considered as natural born citizens and not naturalized citizens nor foreigners.  That meant that they were 100 % fully American and not half-American due their birth on British or French  or whatever soil, even if that nation’s nationality system  claimed them as its subjects.   The United States rejected any such claim.  American sovereignty reigned over foreign rules, laws, and customs even though not born outside of its direct reach.

That expressed two things.  One was that regardless of where they were born, American citizenship was passed by blood right from American fathers to their children, -even if born in Britain.

The other overt implication of declaring foreign-born American children as being natural born citizens was to secure their right to one day serve as their nation’s President.  Since there is no other connection to that term other than the presidency, it had to have been the one and only reason for insisting that they be viewed as such.  That implied a total rejection by the first Congress of the British system of birth-place determined nationality.  Natural law was elevated, restored and substituted in its place.  The American families would have only one nationality and an American father’s children would all take after him, -not the soil on which they were born, nor the previous foreign nationality of a European mother.

The American family thus was redefined according to Natural Law.  An analogy could be the image of an Indian warrior, backed by his younger siblings, standing to do hand-to-hand combat with the enemy.  What one sees when looking at him is the same thing that one sees when looking at them.  They are the same.  Of the same everything, including the same blood.  Simply substitute their warrior father for the oldest sibling and you have the picture of the American family from the perspective of the national government of the United States.  They were all of one origin.  An American father’s children could not have two origins any more than the Indian warriors could have siblings from another tribe, -motivated by another allegiance.  Unadulterated unity cast out or prevented duality.  That was the nationality assignment system embraced by the founding fathers, -the one that springs from the universal principle of natural membership.

By it, if one is not 100 % of a single origin, then one is not a natural member of any group anymore than a liger or a tigon are natural members of any big cat group because no such groups exist in nature.  Lions produce lions and tigers produce tigers.  There is no natural group in which they mix.  That only happens in the artificial environment of captivity.  It is the same with nationality.  Where dual-nationality exists, natural nationality does not because hybrids are unnatural combos of divergent origins.

Barack Obama is of such an origin; dual, divergent, hybrid, bifurcated, unnatural.  His supposed citizenship is not natural citizenship because of the non-singular nature of his parents’ nationality backgrounds.  Kenyans and Americans cannot produce natural born Kenyans nor natural born Americans because there is no such natural or national group as Kenyan-American or American-Kenya citizens.

Kenyans are Kenyan and Americans are American.  Hybridization produces dual nationality until adulthood.  Then Kenya, rejecting dual nationality (as many nations do or did) required that Obama Jr. either embrace Kenyan citizenship and reject American citizenship or else he would lose his Kenyan citizenship which was only provisional in nature since he was born outside of Kenya to a foreign mother.

He did not do so and so he remained solely a citizen of…. Indonesia via his regularly renewed Indonesian passport.  To understand why that is so, read “The Seattle Scenario” and its second part “Why baby Obama Was Born in Vancouver”.  In them you will learn why Obama’s mother was never able to acquire a US birth certificate for him, and was thus unable to ever prove U.S. citizenship.

 

by Adrien Nash  August 2014  obama–nation.com

 

Advertisements

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”.

4 Responses to The Presidency, and Dual vs Single Family Nationality

  1. slcraignbc says:

    You really should read Aristotle’s “Politics”, in three volumes, and Vattel’s The Laws of Nature and Nations and their affects on the conduct of affairs of men and nations, or at the very least the Preface to the 1758 Edition………..before you set out to “paraphrase” concepts that you have as yet learned to grasp…………
    [NOW THAT IS PLAIN FOOLISH. HOW CAN I PARAPHRASE AUTHORS WHO I’VE NEVER READ AND DON’T NEED TO READ IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND NATURAL REALITY AND LEGAL HISTORY? DID THEY GET THEIR UNDERSTANDING FROM ME? NO, NOR DID I GET MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THEM. AND AS USUAL, YOU HAVE NO POINT TO MAKE WHATSOEVER BECAUSE YOU ARE DEVOID OF ORIGINAL THOUGHTS, SEEKING TO MAKE YOURSELF APPEAR AS MORE THAN JUST AN ABSORBER OF THE THOUGHTS OF OTHERS BECAUSE OF A WIDE READING BACKGROUND. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE A POINT THAT BEGINS SOMEWHERE AND GOES SOMEWHERE.]

    PREFACE
    [Vattel 1758]

    THE Law of Nations, though so noble and important a subject, has not, hitherto, been treated of with all the care it deserves. The greater part of mankind have, therefore, only a vague, a very incomplete, and often even a false notion of it. The generality of writers, and even celebrated authors, almost exclusively confine the name of “Law of Nations” to certain maxims and treatises recognised among nations, and which the mutual consent of the parties has rendered obligatory on them. This is confining within very narrow bounds a law so extensive in its own nature, and in which the whole human race are so intimately concerned; it is, at the same time, a degradation of that law, in consequence of a misconception of its real origin.

    There certainly exists a natural law of nations, since the obligations of the law of nature are no less binding on states, on men united in political society, than on individuals. But, to acquire an exact knowledge of that law, it is not sufficient to know what the law of nature prescribes to the individuals of the human race. The application of a rule to various subjects, can no otherwise be made than in a manner agreeable to the nature of each subject. Hence, it follows, that the natural law of nations is a particular science, consisting in a just and rational application of the law of nature to the affairs and conduct of nations or sovereigns. All treatises, therefore, in which the law of nations is blended and confounded with the ordinary law of nature, are incapable of conveying a distinct idea, or a substantial knowledge of the sacred law of nations.

    (Cont.) http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel-01.htm

  2. slcraignbc says:

    But, lest you not bother to inquire further, riddle me this in you attempts to reconcile what you think you know with that which truly IS;

    ” … The necessary and the voluntary laws of nations are therefore both established by nature, but each in a different manner: the former, as a sacred law which nations and sovereigns are bound to respect and follow in all their actions; the latter, as a rule which the general welfare and safety oblige them to admit in their transactions with each other.

    The necessary law immediately proceeds from nature; and that common mother of mankind recommends the observance of the voluntary law of nations, in consideration of the state in which nations stand with respect to each other, and for the advantage of their affairs.

    This double law, founded on certain and invariable principles, is susceptible of demonstration, and will constitute the principal subject of this work….” {Vattel: Preface 1758 Edition}

  3. slcraignbc says:

    And then to totally confound your objections to the proposition of Law upon which I base the authority on the specific subject of U.S. Citizenship;

    ” …. There is another kind of law of nations, which authors call arbitrary, because it proceeds from the will or consent of nations. States, as well as individuals, may acquire rights and contract obligations, by express engagements, by compact and treaties; hence results a conventional law of nations, peculiar to the contracting powers.

    Nations may also bind themselves by their tacit consent: upon this ground rest all those regulations which custom has introduced between different states, and which constitute the wage of nations, or the law of nations founded on custom.

    It is evident that this law cannot impose any obligation except on those particular nations who have, by long use, given their sanction to its maxims: it is a peculiar law, and limited in its operations, as the conventional law; both the one and the other derive all their obligatory force from that maxim of the natural law which makes it the duty of nations to fulfil their engagements, whether express or tacit.

    The same maxim ought to regulate the conduct of states with regard to the treaties they conclude and the customs they adopt.

    I must content myself with simply laying down the general rules and principles which the law of nature furnishes for the direction of sovereigns in this respect.

    A particular detail of the various treaties and customs of different states belongs to history, and not to a systematic treatise on the law of nations. …..”

  4. slcraignbc says:

    DID you really mean to say this…..???? [Nash responds: Why did you excise your first paragraph, -the one that my next reply refers to? It is because I corrected you, and you do not like being corrected.]

    [NOW THAT IS PLAIN FOOLISH. HOW CAN I PARAPHRASE AUTHORS WHO I’VE NEVER READ AND DON’T NEED TO READ IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND NATURAL REALITY AND LEGAL HISTORY? DID THEY GET THEIR UNDERSTANDING FROM ME? NO, NOR DID I GET MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THEM. AND AS USUAL, YOU HAVE NO POINT TO MAKE WHATSOEVER BECAUSE YOU ARE DEVOID OF ORIGINAL THOUGHTS, SEEKING TO MAKE YOURSELF APPEAR AS MORE THAN JUST AN ABSORBER OF THE THOUGHTS OF OTHERS BECAUSE OF A WIDE READING BACKGROUND. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU HAVE A POINT THAT BEGINS SOMEWHERE AND GOES SOMEWHERE.]..””

    ” ….Then you say you do not need to “read them” in order to understand THEM, which would indicate that in your mind you are a “natural observer” of “natural law” on par with Aristotle and Vattel and therefore you have the talent to RECONCILE “natural law” with “historical law” without the CONTEXT of those who DID READ and APPLY the Principles they learned from their reading which lead to the “history of law” that you observe and intuitively APPLY without citing or naming any PRINCIPLES gleaned from your observations that you record in a narrative form.

    Well, I’d go back and line by line correct the misstatements and misunderstandings that run like thin wet ink through the entire little screed that neither adheres to natural law or the law of nations …. or reality for that matter.
    [~~~~~~~~REPLY: DON’T TALK ABOUT GOING LINE-BY-LINE. DO IT!!! PLEASE, CORRECT EVERY “MISTAKE” THAT YOUR VAST KNOWLEDGE UNCOVERS. WE NEED TO GET THINGS STRAIGHT AND CORRECT SO IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE IT GETS DONE. I AWAIT YOUR DEEP INSIGHTS AND ILLUMINATING KNOWLEDGE, OR WISE ONE.]

    ….. but please, as a courtesy to women & men both, take the time to look up the Doctrine of “coverture”, aka “couverture” , which you butcher, and which was replaced, under the history of U.S. Law, by the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act.

    Also, only three (3) States under the Articles of Confederation provided for Jus Soli as a means of acquiring State Citizenship at birth regardless of parentage ALONG with the “natural law rule’ that a child was the same political character as the father at birth as being implicit, (without saying so), and self-evident.

    [I read three original State Constitutions so far and all three allowed jus soli citizenship to continue as it had from the foundation of every colony in America. Now you are telling me that all 10 other Constitutions forbade native-birth citizenship? That is not believable. And you cited no historical evidence to back your claim, -which in order to be known would have required having read all thirteen State Constitutions. Are you claiming to have done so?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: