The False Equivalency Error of Birther Native-birth Dogma

(and how it separates the thinkers from the drinkers)

Many fine people throughout history have believed things that were simply not factual, often because them seemed reasonable and credible and preferable. The belief that in order to be born as a natural citizen one’s exit from the womb must have transpired within the confines of the borders claimed by the United States government is one of those sorts of things.

Such a belief is rooted in centuries of unnatural citizenship laws that were enacted by courts in England in order to make native-born children of aliens into British subjects. They were certainly NOT natural British subjects so they needed the intervention of men in order to grant them that status, but that allowance has colored the false impression that the public has about citizenship ever since. The common man conceives that those born in America are citizens, and that citizens born in America are eligible to serve as President.

Both assumptions are false, with a caveat, and both assumptions are true with another caveat. What is missing is the presence of the critical word “some”.  Some born in America are legal citizens only, while some born abroad are natural citizens only since the government declares expressly that they are not naturalized. And then there are some who are born within U.S. borders who are not citizens at all.

Now if the President or the Attorney General decides on his own that everyone born within American borders will be treated as a citizen, then a false reality will have been established, -one contrary to actual American law.  It’s very regrettable that that is exactly the situation today, -not because of those currently in power, but because of one in power over a century ago.

His choice, or error, has been an entrenched institutionalized error ever since. He blindly, ignorantly, or deliberately misconstrued the opinion of the Supreme Court in the seminal case (Wong Kim Ark, 1898) dealing with citizenship and the 14th Amendment.  What the heck did its words mean in the real world?

The court decided what they wanted them to mean and they twisted the truth to make that their official holding, but the travesty against the true and accurate interpretation of American law did not end with them because the Attorney General at the time (one John Griggs) took their bastardized opinion and inflated it beyond recognition.

The court ruled that a native-born child of Chinese immigrants who were permanent U.S. residents engaged in business fit the statement of the 14th Amendment which requires that one be born in America under full subjection to the jurisdiction of the national government.  That meant they must be born of members of American society, -members who are or are not citizens but who can be drafted into military service as well as charged with treason against the United States.

That is the fullness of the jurisdiction that is required.  It is not mini-subjection but complete subjection, -just like the natural born citizens of the nation. That jurisdiction only extends to those who are natural born citizens, citizens by law, and legal immigrants with official permission to live and work in the U.S. for the rest of their lives during good behavior.

That does not include those who are aliens outside of the U.S., resident aliens without permission to be in the U.S., those who are foreign representatives, or tourists, or visitors, or temporary workers or students, –and those born to any one of those groups.  NONE of them are fully subject to American national political authority and thus the highly valued gift of United States Citizenship is not provided to them or their children, -at least not by actual American law.  But native-born children are deemed to be citizens regardless of the law, not because of it. And that brain-dead well-entrenched policy is treated as if it were actual U.S. law when in fact it could be changed overnight by the Attorney General.

In fact, he could rule that President Obama is in fact not even an American citizen because of the actual meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment.  And his official legal opinion, as chief legal officer of the nation, would have to be adjudicated before the Supreme Court to settle the matter once and for all.  Of course that would only happen in a dream, -one hell of a dream at that.

But aside from the common man’s false presumptions about citizenship and presidential eligibility, there is the issue of the false presumption about citizenship held by those who are aware that a natural born citizen must be citizen-born, -the offspring of American parents.  They, in large numbers, have been seduced into not leaving the truth there where it ends, -with that simple fact alone, but add to it something of human contrivance, manipulation, imposition, mandate, ancient judicial declaration, and legal conception, and they do so because their minds have been seduced by a very authoritative, rational, legal opinion proffered by “legal experts” whose opinions they respect.

The problem is that their opinion is astonishingly erroneous in its backward reverse-logic. The thinking relied upon is a form of reverse-engineering of an idea, or description of  the natives of a country.  They have taken a statement by the Swiss political philosopher, observer, and author Emmerich de Vattel.  He wrote the Law of Nations, and it was published in 1758 in French.  It mentions “Les naturels ou les indigenes” as being those born in a country of parents who are its citizens.  It makes no use of the English words or term “natural born citizen”.

So what do we see in his observation?  We see that the indigenous population, the natural inhabitants, the natives of a country are the natural citizens of the nation. That observation was echoed by Justice Waite in the women’s voting rights case of Minor v Happerset in 1874.  He stated in his remarks for the court that it was never doubted that those born in a country of parents who are its citizens are considered natural born citizens. Where the nativists go completely off the rails in in doing two things:

1. reversing the order of that statement to say that the natural citizens of a nation are the natives born of citizen parents.  But… they treat that reversal as a sacred “definition” when neither it nor Vattel’s statement was a definition at all, but was merely a common observation.

2. In Vattel’s statement, in place of “les indigenes” they insert the false equivalency: “a natural born citizen”, when that term was not added until the book was translated into English in 1798 -11 years after the Constitution was written. Why is it an error to make an equivalency between what Waite actually wrote and what they say he meant?  The logic of the equivalency is seen to be false without any mental effort at all.  If one says something like: “women who have sex get pregnant”, -is such a statement an observation or description of common reality or is it in fact an actual “definition” of something?  Does it define women?  How about sex?  How about pregnancy?  None of the above.

But lets get right down to brass tacks. This is one of the main sources of the error, -taken from former attorney Leo Donofrio’s “naturalborncitizen” website:

“MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED. …the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident.”

This is the equivalent to his reversal of Waite’s words and its resultant illegitimacy: “All persons who are pregnant and give birth on Earth are women.  These are mothers, or natural born women. (as apposed to surgically created women) He took a statement identical to that and produced this sort of conclusion: “Natural born women are pregnant people who give birth on Earth.”

Both combined:  Natural born women (natural born citizens) are those who give birth on Earth (those born in a country) to children with whom they were pregnant (to parents who are citizens). There you have it, a definition of natural born women as being people who give birth on earth to babies with which they were pregnant.  Can’t be anything wrong with that “definition”, can there?

There is a saying: “If you have to ask the question then you would not understand the answer.”  If you can’t see the gigantic logic error in that false equivalency, then there is no hope of ever opening your mind to what is right in front of your face. But just to be clear; “natural born women” are by that definition ONLY those who have given birth on Earth.  Those who have not given birth on Earth are not “natural born” women even if they have given birth in an airplane, in outer-space, or have never given birth.

The presumed but false requisite that they must have given birth on Earth is equivalent to the dogma that natural born citizens must have been born within the borders of the United States, -which, by the way, does not include Puerto Rico or Guam, -whose natives are considered in some bizarre contortion of law and logic, as being United States citizens nevertheless. Is it sinking in yet that a whole lot of bastardization has been accomplished regarding the principles of American citizenship?

Just as the nation and government has drifted far afield from the Constitution, so it has also drifted far afield from the facts about citizenship.  Even the “experts” are almost always wrong in some way that they fail to recognize because of the pervasiveness of mis-impressions that have been fomented over the centuries.  They write and speak and think things that are nothing more than the impressions that they have absorbed during their days in government schools, but they’ve learned them from teachers of whom the same was true, and on back for six generations.

With such pervasiveness of misconceptions, there is no conceivable way out of such an enduring miasmas of false ideas, false equivalency, false dogma, and false certainty. Unless a Supreme Court Justice learns and speaks the truth, no truth will be illuminated in any American public forum.  The only exception to that fact would be if a top contender for the presidency were to announce that his candidacy has been stopped dead in its tracks by the discovery that he cannot possibly be considered to be a natural born citizen.  That would light the fuse to a string of fireworks that would burn a whole right through the nation, -and through Barry Obama’s unconstitutional presidency.

by Adrien Nash  Jan. 2015,  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”.

18 Responses to The False Equivalency Error of Birther Native-birth Dogma

  1. The Act of 1790; “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization” provided for the “foreign birth” of a child to be considered as a (U.S.) natural born Citizen when born to a married U.S. Citizen father while out of the limits of the U.S.

    The subsequent 1795 Act repealed and replaced THAT provision and thereafter U.S. natural born Citizens ARE confined to birth within the limits of the U.S.

    Why do you AVOID the ACTUAL LAWS of U.S. Citizenship…???

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Reply: Your ignorance and lack of understanding are cosmic in dimension. You have a whole mountain of facts and information that you need to acquire, and, fortunately, they are available in many of the expositions that I’ve written on the subject. But dogmatic minds like yours are not hungry for the truth, -just whatever is most simple to grasp and seems to make sense to the dull, non-penetrating thought process.
    If your thinking caliber were compared to a knife, it would be a butter knife.
    Almost everything that you think you know about those two Nat. Acts is wrong. You can easily find out why, but you don’t care to investigate any further than your settled bias.

    If you actually had an open mind, then your certainty would vanish and you would understand that many things are not what they seem on the surface, and many fundamental principles are completely missed in the superficial gloss of government authority.
    You worship at the wrong alter. You fail to grasp what is merely declaratory of what is already true and what is being legislated by constitutional authority. You fail to grasp the very finite limits of Congressional authority over naturalization. You probably also think that Congress was the sole authority over immigration, when in fact it had none.
    You should stop spouting ignorant presumptions and dig a whole lot deeper into what the words you quote actually say and actually mean.

    You probably also think that the thirteen amendment banned slavery and indentured servitude when in fact it did no such thing, and even left it entirely legal in the District of Columbia and on all federal lands. Common knowledge presumptions are often common knowledge nonsense.

    Sorry I don’t have any specific exposition to point you to, but the subject would be almost difficult to not find in most of what I’ve written in the last year.

  2. arnash says:

    Natural (born) citizens (aka: those born as natural citizens) can be born anywhere in the universe because nature has no connection to geography or borders but has everything to do with biology and blood.

    One’s nature and membership are inherited automatically. If anyone who tells you that unless you were born under your parents’ roof, on their property, you are not their natural born child, that person is an ignorant fool. It is 100% the same in relationship to tribal membership and national membership. Members give birth to new members, -namely *natural* members, -as long as both parents are members (neither is an alien).

    That is what the word natural meant in 1787 and that is what it still means today, -regardless of the false dogma that combines the oil and water of Natural Law and legal permission based on birth location. Being born on an Indian reservation does not make you an Indian, and an Indian being born in the King’s castle does not make him or her a royal.

    The membership with which one is born is either 100% natural or it is 100% legal. There is no such thing as a combination of the two, -not in America, and not in any other country that has ever existed. You are either a natural citizen by blood or you are a legal citizen by law, by statute, by the Supreme court interpretation of the 14th Amendment, -or….. by the NON-legal POLICY of the Justice Dept and State Dept. and Citizenship & Immigration Service. Their policy is NOT law but a distortion of the high court’s opinion. By actual law, Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Without an American father, he is not a natural citizen of any nation.

    • slcraignbc says:

      There is NO SUCH THING as a “Citizen”, natural or otherwise, without a POLITICAL DETERMINATION being made 1st to provide for such a creature.

  3. arnash says:

    You fail to comprehend what a citizen is. A citizen is a member of a nation. Most members are natural members by blood. No politician has any authority whatsoever in legitimizing that membership because it is they, the citizens, who legitimize the politicians and their government.

    To say that there is no such thing as a citizen without political determination is to say that there are no natural members of any group, whether family, tribe, country, or nation. You imagine that all citizens are legal citizens when that is only true of those born of aliens or mixed nationality parents.

    You need to consider and comprehend the meaning of the term “a prior“. It defines that which pre-dates that which is.
    The citizenship of natural citizens in the colonies pre-dated the Constitution. Those men who adhered to the Revolution and its principles were those considered to be the new citizens of a new country, and that was before the “United States” existed. As seen in the Declaration of Independence, what then existed was the united STATES of AMERICA (thirteen separate sovereign nations allied together for certain purposes -similar to a united STATES of EUROPE).

    They possessed the unalienable right of citizenship for all under their family headship. That means that they themselves were the owners and possessors of their citizenship and no political determination of their membership was required unless of course they presented themselves as unknowns running for high office.

    It also means that one could not be their progeny without inheriting their national membership naturally. That means political inheritance. You imagine that such a thing does not and did not exist. You will not comprehend reality until you grasp that it did and does exist.
    Just as natural membership in one’s own family requires no political determination. Naturally belonging is the essential concept that everyone needs to grasp. Understanding it and determining that someone is included by it in the body of the political society that is a nation does not require a “political determination” -which is in fact a legal determination.

    THERE IS NO LAW BY WHICH NATURAL CITIZENS ARE CITIZENS EXCEPT NATURAL LAW. (just as there is no law by which family members are family members except natural law)

    Your eyes would be greatly opened by reading my transcription and modernization of an important writing of an important founding father. It’s titled: The David Ramsay Dissertation Revelation.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Blood has nothing to do with U.S. Citizenship……….CONSENT is the Constitutional basis of U.S. Citizenship, (see the Preamble) ……. and the children born to U.S. Citizens are MADE U.S. Citizens with the ASSUMPTION of their TACIT CONSENT, (see Vattel), with expatriation being an option upon their reaching the age of majority.

      It MATTERS NOT what preceded the COTUS, once CONSENTED TO and RATIFIED by AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT, the COTUS became the Supreme Law of the Land with the Congress given the plenary power over U.S. Citizenship under the MANDATE to “establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization.

      “Citizenship” is by definition a creation of political determination, ergo a U.S. Citizen MUST be provided for and perpetuated under the political determinations, (Acts & Laws) made in pursuance of the COTUS.

  4. arnash says:

    You can’t be fixed. Your misconceptions are entirely unnatural and derived purely from the philosophical ivory-tower realm, which is unrelated to natural relationships.

    U.S. citizenship is from the same realm as the former British subjectship… which was inherited, just like one’s status in society as serf or freeman or royal.

    The difference in America is that such natural membership is not accompanied by a decree from obsequious royal ass-kissers who defined such membership as indelible and unchangeable for life.

    In America, adult men possessed an unalienable right to uproot themselves and re-root themselves in whatever political society (aka, nation) that they choose via self-expatriation. That was their natural right as free men.

    You blindly and foolishly assert by your language that children also possessed that right, a right of “consent” -otherwise you are consigning them to a class without citizenship. When will you get it through your skull that minors have never possessed such a right. The right that they possess is the right to be members of their father’s family, and state, and country, and nation. Show me where any law or provision of the Constitution disputes that fact.

    Any attempt to dispute it is anti-American because it denies and dismisses a fundamental right that all American men possessed under Natural Law and State Law and the Constitution.

    When you cross beyond the U.S. border do you lose your citizenship? No? Why not? Because it is something that you own and the government does not. It has no rights over it because you are its sovereign. And you possess also the right to pass it down to your progeny as your property and theirs, -if you are married to an American. American individuals to not possess that right because a natural citizen can only be produced in a natural manner, and that requires that both parents be of the same class, same origin, same political group. Those who do not belong to the national group cannot be parents of natural members of the American nation, aka: natural U.S. citizens.

    Consent regarding citizenship has nothing to do with the Constitution. It was written by natural citizens, for natural citizens and consent was never the basis of Constitutional citizenship. It was the basis of state citizenship from July 4, 1776 until victory. Read DAVID RAMSAY!

    With the ratification of the Constitution, all state citizens because citizens of a new nation or political entity and their membership did NOT require their consent. Consent is only connected to their non-rejection of their national membership, aka: tacit consent. It is not and was not required for their automatic membership which had originated through their taking sides with the Revolution, or their father having done so.
    After that, national membership was inherited in perpetuity down through the generations, or… it was obtained via becoming a new natural citizen by natural-ization. Once a foreign man took the oath of Allegiance and Renunciation he became by the authority of the oath an American citizen; -not via the authority of Congress or any Naturalization Act.

    The power is in the oath, not in government. All government does is officiate and quality who is allowed to take that oath and have it recorded. Not everyone is allowed to take it officially. Those who are and do will become Americans by their words of allegiance and renunciation. The swearing is the source of the citizen-izing power. They swear before God and man that they consent and publicly pledge to BEARING ARMS, TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE (see my eye-opening exposition by that title).

    Thereafter, any children that they and their American wife produce will inherit their national membership outside of the authority of Congress. Read my exposition on the Supreme Court’s shoot-down of the federal power to control citizenship once given. It came about because of 80 years of the “Bancroft Treaties”. You are still living in the misconception that the high court destroyed with its holdings on the matter of citizenship and what its nature is in America. Its nature is one of a then purely American legal policy, that being EQUALITY.

    You wrote: “the Congress given the plenary power over U.S. Citizenship”. That is patently false because it is patently ambiguous because it is only half of the truth or less. Congress was given only one power and that was to make uniform the 13 separate state rules for who was allowed to take the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. With a uniform rule in place as the official policy of Congress, it was the obligation of the state governments to alter their state naturalization statutes to conform to it. They were still the lords of immigration and naturalization as the semi-sovereign governments that they remained under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

    But what is egregiously wrong with your statement is the horrible intended implication that Congress has a dictatorial, totalitarian power over ALL citizenship instead of only the obtaining (via naturalization) of citizenship for aliens or children of mixed-nationality couples.

    The thinking of people who make such blind and erroneous blanket statements is frightening because it appears that they embrace totalitarian power over themselves and all other Americans. By such thinking, Congress would possess the authority to cancel, abrogate, or nullify the citizenship of any group or individual that they disapprove of. Do you grasp that your words imply just such a thing? Do you grasp that Congress possesses no such authority and it cannot be found in any of the words of the Constitution or its amendments? Will you blindly and dogmatically adhere to the view that you imply with your ambiguously tyrannical words?

    • slcraignbc says:

      Either you are an unabashed anti-Constitutionalist or your ignorance is as large as your verbosity.

      Talbot v Janson 3 U.S. 133

      ” … The oath of fealty, and the ancient oath of allegiance, were, almost the same; both resting on lands; both designating the person to whom service should be rendered; though the one makes an exception as to the superior lord, while the other is an obligation of fidelity against all men. 2 Bl. Com. 53. Pal. 140. Service, therefore, was also an inseparable concomitant of fealty, as well as of allegiance.

      The oath of fealty could not be violated without loss of lands; and as all lands were held mediately, or immediately, of the sovereign, a violation of the oath of allegiance, was, in fact a voluntary submission to a state of outlawry.

      Hence arose the doctrine of perpetual and universal allegiance.

      When, however, the light of reason was shed upon the human mind, the intercourse of man became more general and more liberal: the military was gradually changed for the commercial state; and the laws were found a better protection for persons and property, than arms.

      But [p141] even while the practical administration of government was thus reformed, some portion of the ancient theory was preserved; and among other things, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance remained, with the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crown to support it.

      Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons.

      Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things.

      Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.

      Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.

      Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.

      Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.

      Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.

      Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.

      Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.

      With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. …”

  5. arnash says:

    You apparently do not comprehend what you are doing. You suppose that disputation and espousing alternative belief is the same as debate when it is only tangentially connected. You point out the extensiveness of my reply and yet for all of its points you fail to counter or debate a single one of them. You will not do that because you cannot do that since you know that they are all irrefutable on their face.

    You counter-belief support instead takes the form of words that are not yours and are not germain to my points, nor even related to the world in which the West lives. Allegiance does not mean to us what it meant a thousand years ago, nor three hundred years ago. Your inappropriate quotation speaks in the present tense that is from an era long, long gone. It is NOT the allegiance required of new members of American political societies, whether states or the nation as a whole.

    How can you consider yourself even half intelligent and yet fail to grasp that any and every oath of loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law is an oath swearing fealty to them and to the honestly of one’s word and sworn pledge? Without loyalty and national allegiance the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement would not exist since the President would only serve the interest of the nation purely out of his “consent” and choice, but with no subjective commitment.

    So we see four theories of what the clause embraces: 1. citizenship and allegiance by blood 2. citizenship and allegiance by soil 3. citizenship and allegiance by both 4. citizenship and chosen action by consent.

    The founding fathers rejected all but the first and that is indisputable because of the words they picked to describe the type of citizen the President must be. He must be born as a natural citizen, a born natural citizen or natural born citizen (similar to: a wise old man or an old wise man). “Natural” means nothing other than what I’ve pointed out. You can’t change the meaning of the word and neither can the nativists such as Apuzzo and the MIA Donofrio. Vattel is not even relevant since he never used the term being as it didn’t exist in French.

    As for ” the ancient oath of allegiance” that you quoted, it also is irrelevant since it became so on July 4th of 1776. All allegiance since then was 100% real and also 100% voluntary since one who is free is free to choose. Those who chose liberty became the new sovereigns, not the new serfs of the government of their state nor of the eventual nation.

    It is the government and those who work for it who are required to swear allegiance to that which serves the sovereigns of the nation, -they being its citizens. The citizens do not have to swear allegiance to the government nor to themselves because they are “We, the People”, the independent sovereigns of the political society that is organized as a nation under their ultimate control, -in place of “His Royal Majesty, the King”.

    We are the kings of the nation, and like the royals, we reserve the unchallengeable right to pass what we own on to our children, and the most important thing that we own is our own citizenship. Yet you will not address that point, nor anything else that I wrote related to it. That is because of the implications of such natural rights, -rights about which you seem to be only vaguely conscious. They destroy the statist view of almighty Congress that possesses your thinking. They are from some other alternate universe than the one you are accustomed to thinking in.

    People like lawyers who have been programmed and indoctrinated to look at everything through the prism of law and legal analysis will always be blind to what is right in front of their faces, and that is why we are in the mess that we are in. Few even consider fundamental principles of liberty and natural rights, much less act according to them. Nor do they adhere to the actual word of the Constitution without reading their own biases and misconceptions into them.

  6. slcraignbc says:

    No “blood test” is required to determine the Citizenship of a child of a U.S. Citizen parent(s), but TACIT CONSENT is assumed.

    There is no “blood test” required to extend U.S. Citizenship to the minor children or adopted minor children of newly naturalized aliens, but an AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT is implicit with the aliens completion of the various provisions of the naturalization process and TACIT CONSENT is assumed on behalf of the minor children.

    I suggest that the winning of the war of 1812 pretty much put the idea that English feudal laws in its grave as far as U.S. Citizenship is concerned.

  7. arnash says:

    You have no grasp of your own ignorance. You mistakenly followed the lead of an ignorant US government employee to wrote about the citizenship of children born of Americans while abroad but who failed to differentiate between those born of American couples, and, as I already informed you, those born of a single American parent. THEY ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT!

    His ignorance is now your ignorance. It is totally false and erroneous to use the wording that you’ve read and swallowed whole: “the Citizenship of a child of a U.S. Citizen parent(s)” The child of the former is a statutory “naturalized” citizen while of the latter it is proclaimed on the same or similar government website that they ARE NOT NATURALIZED! They are natural citizens by blood.

    You claim there is no “blood test” but you do so ignorant of the actual requirements of birth abroad. The American parents must present convincing evidence that the child was born of the mother (of her blood) and that the father is the biological father (of his blood) rather than the child having been born of or fathered by a foreigner.

    If the father or mother was a foreigner then the child has no right to U.S. citizenship. It is obtained solely because of the statutes allowing it by law. The child of American parents is not “granted” or “permitted” citizenship by government, or law because its citizenship is automatic, natural, pre-destined, and inviolable. It is a natural member of its parents’ family and nation. The two are of the very same nature and on the same plane. MEMBERSHIP! It’s natural or it’s artificial via the decree of law; i.e., natural-ization and adoption.

    No one who is a member by decree of law is eligible to be President, but everyone who is a member by blood can be eligible if the other two requirements are met.

    Just because you read something on a government website does not make it true or real. Obama’s birth certificate image is also on a government website. Does that mean that it is therefore not a forgery? Wake up, open your eyes, and start to do your own original thinking.

    • slcraignbc says:

      There are NO “American” parents mentioned in the COTUS, there are only “United States of America Citizens”

      There is an established uniform Rule of, (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}, naturalization.

      That Rule, as construed from the 1790, et seq, Acts is characterized as; “Once a person becomes a U.S.A. Citizen then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise”

      But your long winded extra-Constitutional concoction is far too convoluted to expect you to ever come back out of the weeds into the fruited plains of the Constitutions statutory construction that was and is the Supreme Law of the Land since its RATIFICATION by the consent of those State Citizens present, and no others and not otherwise.

      • slcraignbc says:

        P.S.; the “Blood” of the parents is ONLY relevant when the CITIZENSHIP STATUS is 1st confirmed.

        Everyone has blood of parents when they are born, but NOT everyone has a parent or parents that are U.S. Citizens at the time of birth…

  8. arnash says:

    Are you dense? Why repeat my own points back to me? Not every child of every American couple that appears at a US foreign embassy or consulate is the biological child of that couple because some are adopted foreigners. The citizenship of the parents is NOT first “confirmed” because that is settled already by their possession of U.S. passports.

    What is first confirmed by a preponderance of evidence is whether or not they are the real biological parents. If they are assumed to be so then their child has no need of U.S. law in order to be that which it was born being, a U.S. citizen by birth, by blood, by inheritance.

    You have again avoided refuting anything that I wrote, and it seems by your statement that you even failed to comprehend it. With you living in a flat 2-dimensional world, and I attempting to explain a 3-dimensional reality to you, there is not much hope of your very finite mind grasping truths that are plain to any child.

    The issue of the citizenship of children of naturalized foreigners is totally irrelevant to the citizenship of foreign-born children of American couples, so why the heck did you bother to bring it up when I never raised it as a point at all??? Whose exposition are you reading, -one in your own imagination?

    It would seem that your mind is missing a few cognitive screws and there’s nothing that I can do to fix that for you. You can’t stay on point; you can’t address nor refute my points, all you can do is point out “the uncontested” or argue that your dogmatic take on something is the true truth and explanation.
    Apparently you have a lack of partners with whom to discuss philosophical things in the political realm and so you just take an antagonist stance to produce and prolong a discussion that is going nowhere because the simple truth that escapes you goes over your head.

    • slcraignbc says:

      So a U.S. Passport does NOT confirm a persons citizenship status…???….and you call me dense.

      You need a lesson in the stables where you might come to understand that a horse is hitched to the FRONT of a wagon.

      ” … That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
      their just powers from the consent of the governed,— …”

      Jus soli and jus sanguinis are RED HERRINGS when it comes to the nature of U.S. Citizenship as established under the NEW FORM of Government by the CONSENT of the Governed; (see Talbot v Janson 3 U.S.133 on the 22nd Aug. 1795)

      At A2S8C4 the Congress, under the Constitutionally ENUMERATED POWERS, was mandated the plenary power over the subject of U.S. Citizenship post the collective naturalization effect upon those who were then State Citizens at the Ratification, and no others, (see Scott v Sandford),

      Those that suggest that the word “naturalization” is held in the static “verb sense” fail to comprehend that ALL Politics is theory and doctrine and the word “naturalization” MUST 1st be defined in the “NOUN SENSE” or the actions of the “verb sense” make no sense at all.

      (see Aristotle; Politics; Bk III Part II … specifically: … ” … ‘Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.’

      Another POINT you fail to comprehend is that the titles of the 1st five Acts made by the Congress in pursuance of A1S8C4 expressed that they were Acts “to establish an uniform Rule …” and yet you continue to ATTEMPT rationalizing distinctions between persons and the effects the UNIFORM RULE has upon them.

      When “construing” the overall effects on persons considered under varying circumstances the one irrefutable fact is that “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.”

  9. arnash says:

    Me: “The citizenship of the parents is…settled already by their possession of U.S. passports.”
    You: “So a U.S. Passport does NOT confirm a persons citizenship status…???….and you call me dense.”

    Do you have a drinking problem or a thinking problem?

    “Congress, under the Constitutionally ENUMERATED POWERS, was mandated the plenary power over the subject of U.S. Citizenship”

    I’ve previously informed that of the gross ambiguous error in those words and yet you completely ignore the error because it nullifies your mistaken concept of the extremely limited authority that Congress was given. You, and people like you, are closet statists who run to the alter of almighty Congressional authority, -authority that only exists in your imagination, not on paper, not in the Constitution.
    If you continue to reject acknowledging that Congress was only given authority to devise a national rule for the states to adopt in their naturalization process then you are beyond the reach of the ability to learn or apply reason to obvious and irrefutable facts.

    You have an enormous amount of understanding to absorb before you will grasp the reality of the situation in the young nation. I’ve written multiple expositions on the subject of the duality of citizenship in it but you are aware of none of the facts that I’ve shared and explained. I won’t repeat myself here so if you want to understand that which you are completely unaware of, then you need to read them.

    Anyone who uses the word “citizenship” in the context of the first century of the United States without defining whether or not they are speaking of state citizenship (one’s primary citizenship) or federal citizenship, is speaking ignorantly and ambiguously.

    If you are unwilling to learn things that do no support the dogma that currently inhabits your mind, then your ignorance is willful, and I will no longer engage in dispute with such ignorance.

    The ideas that constitute your political thinking are incorrect, and even worse, apostate from reality and constitutional fidelity. You need to go back to school, and fortunately, that means something very simple; open and read the expositions that I’ve written regarding the inherent conflict between federal citizenship and state citizenship.

    Until then you have no input that is worth devoting my time to. The miasma of your concepts is riddled with false notions, quotes by ignorant men who understood nothing of fundamental principles, and a presumption of total correctness because there is no one else that disputes them. Well, the facts dispute them but you have to come, like I did, to learn what those facts are. Then you will be able to discuss intelligently what the situation was from the beginning, and why.

    • slcraignbc says:

      You state, this time; ” … “The citizenship of the parents is…settled already by their possession of U.S. passports.”

      So apparently you are agreeing that it IS the Citizenship status that must 1st be confirmed before the lineage of the child is considered, right…?.

      And although you claim to have PREVIOUSLY INFORMED me of something that I have not considered I continue to stand by my annotating the “GOES WITHOUT SAYING” implicitness of U.S. Citizenship being the subject of ALL naturalization considerations whether applying to existing U.S. Citizens within or beyond the limits of the U.S. or “aliens”, and their minor children, within the limits of the U.S, both conforming to the uniform Rule…..

      ….unless you are suggesting that the U.S. Congress is contemplating some form of citizenship other than U.S. Citizenship.

      As for the distinctions between State and U.S. Citizenship, please take note that I became cognizant of the many errors that have historically been made when the distinctions were not clearly delineated and have been very careful to add U.S. to the membership status of U.S. Citizens and refer to State Citizens in the correct context.

      There was NO U.S. Citizenship under the COTUS prior to the Ratification of the same.

      Any argument to the contrary is to deny that the COTUS is the Supreme Law of the Land.

      I will grant that many view that U.S. Citizenship can be dated to the publication of the Declaration of Independence, but that “dating” is in retroactive considerations dating TO the Ratification of the COTUS, when the then existing STATE Citizens, duly acknowledged under the Articles of Confederation and perpetual union, CONSENTED to and RATIFIED the COTUS and in a “collective naturalization effect” became the 1st generation of U.S. Citizens as contemplated within the COTUS.

      As for the conflicts between State and Federal Citizenship it is you that needs to be schooled.

      Your arguments incorporate STATE cases regarding Estates and Inheritance which was and remains a 10th Amendment State issue given that the COTUS did not contemplate removing the issue from the States.

      The U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson and Collet v Collet all attest to the supremacy of Federal Laws over State Laws on the subject of U.S. Citizenship naturalization when the State Laws conflicts with the Federal Laws made in the pursuance of the authority of A1S8C4 of the COTUS.

      It is also informative to note that various States dropped any and all State naturalization Laws well before the 14th Amendment and relied solely on the Federal Laws as far as “Citizenship” was concerned.

      Baby steps, … is “naturalization” a political concept or not ….???

      • slcraignbc says:

        P.S.;

        As far as getting to the basic before assuming facts what is your problem with Aristotle and the passage from Politics, Bk III Part II that I cite….???

        …. and you are aware that the Latin for “nature” is “Natura” which is derived from “Natum” which means ‘to produce’ ; Which is producing or is ready to produce all things. “Natum” having derived from the Greek “nao” makes the case that “naturalization” is a derivative of “Natura”, to produce citizens, as did the magistrates of Larissa.

        Reply: That only holds true in a world in which Latin is determinative of common meaning, but we do not live in that world. We live in the world of English. In English “natural” is not synonymous with “Nature”. Natural is not a noun. That which is natural is that which is of nature. In nature there is a fundamental principle of life and membership, and it is that they are transmitted by “blood”, -not law, nor lawmakers. No lawmaker can make a natural citizen. Only citizen parents can do that, -just as no other father can make children who are your natural children.

        Lawmakers can citizen-ize foreigners by their authority, as they do in Mexico and many other nations, but in America we go one giant step further by making foreigners not only citizens but natural citizens just like all who were born of citizens. Only by that philosophical legal fiction are all citizens equal.

        In Mexico and other nations, all citizens are NOT equal. Citizen-ized aliens CANNOT serve as policemen, mayors, soldiers, legislators, judges, governors, nor presidents. Why not? Because they are not natural citizens. Only natural Mexican citizens can serve in those capacities. They do not recognize the American legal fiction of natural-ization. No alien is made into a natural Mexican by their citizen-ization process.

        As for the quote from Aristotle, it is not applicable to the US Congress since it has no authority to make citizens. Its only authority is to prescribe the qualifications of those allowed to make themselves into citizens via the solemn and sacred oath of Allegiance & Renunciation.
        Government cannot speak those transformative words for foreigners and thus government cannot make them into citizens. They are not citizens before they speak those words but they are citizens after they speak them because the citizen-izing power is in the oath, -not in any statute, otherwise the oath would be unnecessary.

        By the oath they change sides, change allegiance, change loyalty, change what they belong to. Before it they belong to a foreign nation. After it they belong to America. The expression of their consent is 100% demonstrated by their oath. Their membership is secured by it and not my the allowance to take it.

        You need to come to understand the real power of the forces at play in the psychological and sociological realm. The real power is not statutory but personal. Becoming an American is both a legal and formal thing, but like the Boston bomber who was supposedly naturalized, it is not a real thing unless one becomes an American in their mind and heart and self-identity.

        Same with being an adoptive parent. It can be a formal legal thing without human substance, but that is only legal adoption, not real adoption. So it is with becoming an American. The statues do not an American make though they allow one to become a United States citizen by their oath. One can be a citizen without being a real American, just as one can be a real American without being a citizen. Just ask the “Dreamers”.

  10. arnash says:

    You’ve given the history of the wrong word. “nature” is not an element of the word “naturalization”. What is is the word “natural”.
    To naturalize is to make something or someone natural. Foreigners are not natural members of the American nation so in order to become a part of it they need to be “made” into natural members via the fiction of law or legal artifice known as natural-ization.

    In America there was only three forms of citizenship before the constitution was ratified, and they were natural citizenship, common law citizenship, and naturalized citizenship. Under the Constitution only natural citizens can be President, but since ALL citizens are considered to be equal as natural citizens by either nature or by artifice of legal philosophy, it is necessary to designate that only those who were BORN as natural citizens are eligible to be President. Hence the word was underlined by John Jay when he wrote to General Washington.

    “So apparently you are agreeing that it IS the Citizenship status that must 1st be confirmed before the lineage of the child is considered, right…?.”

    Your thinking is missing a few beats. Why can’t you comprehend that NOTHING needs to be “confirmed” since having a US passport is prior confirmation of citizenship? Citizenship is already confirmed, so in that sense it is confirmed first, but not by any foreign officer of the US government.

    Only the paternity and maternity of an American couple’s child needs to be confirmed abroad. Once it is, then any possibility of needing naturalization vanishes. No child of American couples has EVER! been natural-ized because they are all born being natural by parentage, by the blood of an American father and mother.

    “I continue to stand by my annotating the “GOES WITHOUT SAYING” implicitness of U.S. Citizenship being the subject of ALL naturalization considerations…”

    You can stand by any foolishness that you care to, that does not make it valid, credible, provable, logical, nor constitutional. It is pure imagination and not a damn thing more. The authors of the naturalization sentence “implied” NOTHING! They stated EXACTLY what then intended to and did not leave it to statists like you to immensely expand the power and scope of Congress into the State issue of citizenship except to write a rule that was intended to be uniformly adopted by the states in their naturalization process.

    Once that simple rule was written, then Congress had ZERO further authority over the matter of citizenship. You may protest that fact but without a single square foot of ground to base it on. You simply embrace it as an article of your American Government Catechism.

    “and in a “collective naturalization effect” became the 1st generation of U.S. Citizens as contemplated within the COTUS.”

    Hey you up there in that ivory tower… please point out where down here on the ground of reality there is any such thing as “a collective naturalization”. IT DIDN’T HAPPEN (until it was purportedly done for the Vietnamese boat people) Nearly all citizens of America were ALREADY natural citizens. How the hell to you make a natural citizen into a natural citizen???

    Creating a new union and central government did not require anything physical nor philosophical be done. It was simply a given fact that the citizens of the States constituted the citizens of the new nation. But burred thinking due to bastardized citizenship policy and interpretation has clouded most people’s minds. Just consider the population of Guam and Puerto Rico. What state are they citizens of? What part do they have in the Union of the States? They are not Americans but they nevertheless are U.S. citizens! How is that possible? Because people like you think that Congress can do anything within the expansive realm of their desires and preferred interpretation of the “living Constitution”.

    Well, they can, and do, but that does not make it natural, principled, nor constitutional.

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: