Citizen “Classes” Exposed by Surprising Illuminations

Lupin wrote:
“we only recognize two types of citizens: those born so, and those naturalized. Even though the criteria for both have evolved since the 18th century (father/mother etc), there never was a “third” class of citizenship.”

my reply: Self-analysis of your own words and ideas is totally lacking in that statement. “We recognize”… but who is “we” and how do we “recognize two types of citizens”? Answer: the “we” is the executive branch of the federal government as directed by the Department of Homeland Security which has supervision over the Citizenship & Immigration Service. There is no other “we” recognizing anything except the courts in some cases.

It should not be said that the government executive branch enforces or carries out “the law” because the law may be, and probably is, rife with ambiguous words or wordings. [one congressman recently showed an 800 page bill that resulted in 80,000 pages of regulation] That ambiguity requires someone at the top of the food chain, or lower, depending on the issue, to decide what the “real meaning” to the ambiguous language is.  Then they enforce or carry out that interpretation.  That means that the officials of the executive branch carry out the stated policy of the “decider” or interpreter of what the law says.

[Historically that was the chief attorney and law enforcement officer of the U.S. government, the Attorney General.  But under the government reorganization following 9-11, his authority over citizenship law enforcement and interpretation was given to Homeland Security.]

If the chief interpreter’s understanding of “the law” is wrong in any way, then the orders he gives to those below him will not actually be based on “the law” but on his written policy of what it is and how to fulfill it.  Understanding what the written law is presents an opportunity of misunderstanding it, but that is on top of the opportunity to not even be aware of the everlasting universal influence of unwritten natural law.

One might call it universal human tradition, but in fact it is not “human” only, but a factor in all forms of sentient life that lives in groups.  That is the law of natural belonging.  It is the cause behind natural membership.  Anything that belongs to another thing is a part of its group.

If you own your own child then it is a part of your family group.  If you own a slave then the slave is a part of your property or plantation group.  Every natural minor member of your own family group belongs to the groups that you belong to, whether religious, ethnic, or political, which includes the government entities that you are subject to, whether city, county, state, or nation.  That is the effect of the universal unwritten law of belonging.  Without it nothing would exist other than individuals unrelated to each other.

There is no law that “we” can point to which declares the basis of citizenship in the United States because there is no one single basis. There is more than one, and that is what has confused all of the unthinking legal minds for generations.  The one for outsiders is written, the one for insiders is not written and does not need to be because it is everlasting and universal.

Natural membership is not dependent on ANY LAW. It pre-dates all law. It is before and beneath the very system of law that you revere. The entire realm of human law exists within its vast sphere.

What law did you depend on when you brought your newborn daughter home from the hospital? “Who says she belongs to you?” “Where is the law that allows you to claim her?” “There is none, so we will take ownership of her and sell her to the highest bidder.”
Natural law is not written. It does not need to be written. Natural rights are generally not written. Few other nations have a Bill of Rights. Fewer still, if any, have a Bill of Natural Rights, (although the Kenyan Constitution supports a whole lot of them from the socialist perspective).

National membership is first and foremost the consequence of a blood relationship to members who brought you into the world. Instead of getting a passport from your parents you get a place in their national membership. A seat at their national table. No one has to give you permission to sit at your own table. You were born as a member of the family household, only that family is a national family instead of an individual family.

Natural membership is the universal rule of of all social forms life, animal and human.
Whether or not a legislative body sees fit to codify something so primal is irrelevant to its unavoidable existence.

To imagine that jus sanguinis did not exist without an expressed statute validating or adopting it is like saying that your newborn children do not belong to you (an American couple) unless a jus sanguinis statute allows you the right to be their parents. You are their parents regardless, -in the absence of an unneeded statute, and no sane government on earth would ever assert that your right of parenthood did not exist without its written approval.

People without any understanding of the original basis of natural nations are blinded by the misconception that all membership is legal membership since all they are aware of is the realm of legal authority, and there is no legal authority for natural belonging.  There is nothing written regarding natural belonging, -only authority (via law) for legal belonging, which includes the areas of naturalization and adoption.

What do those areas deal with?  Outsiders, –not your own twin brother or sister, or your parents, or your children who are all Americans by descent. No law was ever written for them or you because they are the sort of people that created the law, the government, the Constitution and its amendments.  They are fellow natural citizens.

Think of Congress and how it exempts itself from its own odious laws.  Well the creators of free nations do something similar but in a natural manner since people don’t need to give themselves permission to be what they already naturally are.

Imagine a hypothetical situation in which the Japanese people are forming a new democratic nation.  Would they feel compelled to state in writing that all Japanese people are Japanese?
That would be unthinkable.  It was the same with the American people when they formed the United States under the Constitution.  “All Americans who are Americans by nature are Americans”.  “Yeah, let’s put that in written or people might forget.”

“those born so, and those naturalized”.

It is stupid superficiality to fail to recognize just how ambiguous the words “those born so” truly is.  It illuminates almost nothing. “those born so”? How? How were they born as citizens? By what factor or means?

Ask that question and only then might the truth emerge. But that won’t happen until one goes down underground, beneath the mansion, beneath the street, beneath the city. Then one can notice something unexpected; there are two systems down there, not just one. There are foundational structures built of brick, but in general, everything is built of natural stone.

An analogy to the above quote would be saying that buildings are either built on foundations or they are built on sand (born so or naturalized). That fails to account for buildings built on stilts, or on bedrock, but the comparison of foundations of brick and stone best reveals how undefined the words “born so” truly are.

It comes with no facts, and no principle. But facts and a principle do exist. They are just ignored because no one cares to understand the full picture. At least they didn’t until the appearance of the “unifying” Great Mixed-Race Hope who ran for the presidency. Then the questions arose: “Is he constitutionally qualified? The Constitution says the President can’t be anyone but a natural born citizen. Can he actually be one?”

One could say that a brick is a “building block”, and that a stone is one also, but one cannot say that a brick is a “natural” building block, but one can say that of a stone.

A stone is natural, nature-made, while a brick is not natural, it’s an artificially created building block. That is the same sort of difference between those who are natural citizens and those who are artificially-made citizens who get their national membership via human law and executive policy.

That membership may begin at birth, but the eventual membership of those born of members is determined at conception. Their off-spring at pre-destined to be members like their parents.

The children equivalent to bricks are those who would not be bricks in our national building if their mother had walked across the border and given birth in Mexico or Canada. That is because they are not Americans but foreigners.

American couples always give birth to Americans. Foreign couples always give birth to foreigners but they may be allowed to be Americans after they are born, -beginning from the day they are born.
Comprehend this; the lifeless baby of a foreign mother who miscarries in the US is not a lifeless American baby because citizenship is only conferred to the living by our American common law native-birth allowance.
Similarly, with apologies for having to resort to the gross, if here in the US a baby was surgically removed from a pregnant foreign woman against her will, -and kidnapped, it would not be a kidnapped American because it was not born in America.

But if it was the baby of an American woman or couple, then it would be an American baby that was kidnapped. How’s that for parsing the heck out of how one can use the word “born”?

So we see that the two different ways to be a citizen from birth have nothing in common. Natural belonging due to a blood connection is unrelated to the legal allowance of common law.  “By birth” is unrelated to “at birth” since the former is based on genetic relationship while the latter is based on nothing other than the man-made rule addressing the transient, insignificant geographical location of the mother during delivery.

Yet ignorant folks go about their lives without giving a thought to that fact. Stone, brick… what’s the difference? Plenty! The difference between the two forms of solids is the difference in their origin.  Both are solids, like both natural and naturalized-at-birth Americans are citizens but they are entirely different in the origin of their natural nationality.  One has a natural American origin while the other has a natural foreign origin.

Building stones are much less likely to crumble under enormous stress than bricks. They are made from completely dissimilar material, just as are children of Americans and children of foreigners. A difference between the children will never develop though if they are raised in America as loyal Americans. Those born as bricks will grow up to become stones. Not so if raised in a very foreign land by foreign parents with unAmerican values, -or raised in America without any assimilation.

“we only recognize two types of citizens: those born so, and those naturalized.”

Actually, by our fundamental principles, we recognize only ONE class of citizens, and it is the “natural class”. Politically there is no other class although sociologically the US government (the Census Bureau) divides citizens into the categories of “the native stock” and “the foreign stock”.  By the government’s own categorization, those born of foreigners are in the foreign stock regardless of where they are born  In other words, the United States government places Barack Obama in the “foreign stock” category.  Needless to say, no one from the foreign stock group is eligible to be President.

But politically speaking, all those born of Americans are natural American citizens. It doesn’t matter if their parents were naturalized because natural-ization made them into new natural citizens so they are in the same class as those born as natural citizens.  T

They are admitted to the group via the application of an American fiction of law, rather than by a blood association that dates to conception. Among those in the natural citizen super-class are those who were born into the class (the 97%), along with the 3% or so who are admitted by allowance of law (political adoption).

The only members of the greater American family that are not members, or permanent members, of that group are American Nationals who are not citizens (American Samoans) and provisional citizen children.

The word “citizen” is as ambiguous as is the word “born”. There are distinctly different kinds of citizens. There are what can be called American citizens, United States citizens, citizens of the United States, State citizens, provisional citizens, derivative citizens, statutory citizens, constitutional or common law citizens, and natural citizens. All of them are more than one.

If one was born of Americans in Antarctica, (which is owned by no nation) growing up there, then one would not be “a United States citizen” (born on Federal land or in federal territories), nor a State citizen, but would be an American citizen and “a citizen of the United States” as are all Americans.

But if one were born of Puerto Rican or Guamian parents then one would be a U.S. citizen but not a natural citizen of the United States because neither place is a part of the United States. Puerto Ricans are United States citizens (federal citizens so declared by the United States government alone) but they are not citizens of the united States. They are not citizens of the compact of union between the States.

Not all Americans can be President. Some Americans are not even citizens since they were illegally brought into the country as very young children.  One must be an American citizen who is or was a State citizen for 14 years, and born as a natural citizen of the United States or any of the States.  Such a citizen is everyone born of citizens regardless of location as long as they fulfill the age and residency requirement:

“No Person, except a natural born citizen,… shall be eligible to the office of the President, neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

That does not describe anyone born of foreigners, or of a parent who is foreign, nor of parents who are citizens of a territory that is not a part of the United States.  The truth about nationality and US citizenship vagueness can be seen in trying to discern if the child of a traveling Communist Chinese General & wife, born in Guam, could become eligible to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States military and nuclear forces by being elected President.

If you are going through life deluded by the fallacy that one’s place of birth determines one’s eligibility to be President, they you should be damned frightened at such a possibility, because, by your mistaken belief, such a child could eventually qualify to be President of the United States.  But he could not qualify under the actual meaning of the simple English words of the Constitution’s eligibility clause.  By them a man such as Barack Obama is explicitly not eligible to be the President.

by Adrien Nash  Feb. 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”.

4 Responses to Citizen “Classes” Exposed by Surprising Illuminations

  1. slcraignbc says:

    Lupin wrote: “There is NO “NATURAL MEMBERSHIP”, insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned.”

    The 1st Generation of U.S. Citizens were those State Citizens that were “naturalized” by the Ratification of the COTUS, thereby “made” U.S. Citizens.

    Then and only then is Lupin correct in his count, insofar as the historical means of acquiring U.S. Citizenship, for the “established uniform Rule” informs us that “once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise.

    Read and construe the 1790 / ’95 Acts for yourself and find error in what I suggest if you can.

    But, in 1922 the “Generations” of U.S. Citizenship took on a new burden, i.e., the Women’s Independent Citizenship provisions of the Cable Act and its EFFECT that created and legalized the circumstance of Dual-Citizenship, being a NEW hyphenation of U.S. Citizenship, insofar as its recognized statutory acceptance.

    And soon, what new hyphenations will be required to identify the various forms of artificial insemination procedures with donor sperm and eggs….. “Bio-Adopted U.S. Citizen”…????

  2. arnash says:

    I’ve read naturalization law that dealt with the issue of artificially produced babies, so that form of regulation has already arrived.

    You shared a point which which is extremely important in understanding what naturalization is NOT. The children of naturalized foreigners became Americans not by naturalization but by their blood relationship to an American father. That is an example of citizenship via descent.
    But in case you are unaware of it, the same language reveals that the foreigner’s children became citizens via his naturalization regardless of any consideration for their place of birth. No mention of birth place can be found in any of those early acts, only the factor of being “resident” in the US.
    If they became citizens recognized by the national government only upon his naturalization, then that indicates that Congress did not consider them to be citizens of the United States prior, regardless of native-birth. If it had, then it would have been endorsing what it detested; dual citizenship.

    “The 1st Generation of U.S. Citizens were those State Citizens that were “naturalized” by the Ratification of the COTUS, thereby “made” U.S. Citizens.”

    Here’s a suggestion for you to consider: take that ivory-tower, theoretical, purely conceptual view and ignore it in favor of simple reality. It is purely an exercise of the imagination to theorize that something, somehow “naturalized” them upon adoption of the Constitution.

    That fails to recognize the actual reality of the situation. Upon adoption of the Constitution by the State governments, those States joined in a Union in which they were all members. The concept of natural-ization is irrelevant to membership in that union since it was a voluntary and deliberate alliance.
    They did not need to be made into “natural” citizens like all the other United States citizens because there were none since the nation did not yet exist.

    If you form a poker club with your buddies, you do not need to be naturalized into membership because membership comes via mutual agreement, not by the exercise of a non-existing theoretical force.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Look, all people have “blood”, a physiological necessity, right…?

      [THAT OBSERVATION IS NOT PERTINENT TO ANYTHING UNDER DISCUSSION. YOU USED BLOOD IN A LITERAL SENSE, WHICH IS UNRELATED TO TRANSMISSION OF MEMBERSHIP OR POLITICAL CHARACTER. ONLY A FOOL WOULD CLAIM THAT A SON (OR DAUGHTER) DOES NOT INHERIT THE POLITICAL CHARACTER OF HIS OR HER PARENTS. THAT CHARACTER IS WHAT DEFINES THEM BECAUSE IT COMES WITH AUTOMATIC MEMBERSHIP IN THEIR PARENTS’ NATION.]

      But all people do NOT have U.S. Citizenship.

      Certainly there are multitudes of historical statements about a persons country being in their blood, their hearts and souls, but I know of NO blood test that would determine if a person was born a U.S. Citizen that did not include independently verifying that at least one of the parents was a U.S. Citizen at the time of birth.

      [YOUR CONCEPTUAL ERROR IS IN NOT RECOGNIZING THE REASON WHY THE PARENTS WERE US CITIZENS. IS IT BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY WERE BORN? OR IS IT BECAUSE OF WHOM THEY WERE BORN TO? ONE IS RELATED TO BORDERS, WHILE THE OTHER IS RELATED TO “BLOOD”, I.E, DESCENT.]

      By the Framers and Founders own words they did not CONSIDER themselves “natural” citizens, probably because they had read Aristotle and understood the concept of being “conformed to the nature of a member of a new nation”.

      [I’VE ALREADY MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT THEY WERE, AND KNEW THEMSELVES TO BE, NATURAL CITIZENS OF THEIR OWN HOME COUNTRY…OF VIRGINIA, NEW YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, ETC. WHAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU, AND ONCE ME, FAIL TO GRASP IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT ONE BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF “THE UNITED STATES”. THOSE WORDS ARE ABSENT BECAUSE THE CLAUSE WAS NOT WRITTEN ABOUT FUTURE GENERATIONS BUT ABOUT THEIR OWN. THEY WERE REFERRING TO THEMSELVES! ]

      So, how about this for an Oath of Naturalization………..

      ” … We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America….”

      ….and then, as I suggest in my proposition of law…………”… Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise…”

      If you can find fault with THAT interpretation of the effects upon the circumstances provided for within the 1790 / ’95 Act’s, then show me…..!!!

      I’VE ALREADY DONE SO! BUT A CLOSED MIND WON’T LET IN WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT. I EXPLAINED WHAT NATURAL-IZATION IS AND IS NOT.
      YOU WANT TO USE THAT WORD BUT USE IT IN A CONCEPTUAL WAY THAT HAS NO TETHER TO REALITY. YOU JUST LIKE THE IMAGERY OF IT, THE SOUND OF IT. BUT REALITY IS NOT A PART OF THAT.

      I CAN’T EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT THE GRASS FEELS LIKE ON BARE FEET WHEN YOU ARE 500 FEET ABOUT THE GROUND, LIVING IN A HOT AIR BALLOON. REALITY IS NOT CONCEPTUAL. IT IS REAL. NO ONE WAS ‘NATURALIZED” BY THE CONSTITUTION SINCE NO ONE NEEDED TO BE MADE THE SAME AS THE NATURAL CITIZENS OF A NATION THAT DID NOT EVEN EXIST BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION HAD NOT YET BEEN RATIFIED.

      LIKE I SAID, THEY ALL BECAME NATIONAL CITIZENS BY THEIR COMPACT OF UNITY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. THEY ALL REMAINED CITIZENS OF THEIR OWN SEMI-SOVEREIGN NATION-STATES, AND THAT UNITY INCLUDED RECOGNIZING AS EQUAL THE CITIZENS OF ALL OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE UNION, MAKING THEM ALL COLLECTIVELY NATIONAL CITIZENS ALSO SINCE THEY WERE ALL CITIZENS OF THE united STATES.

      TO OBTAIN A CLEAR AND SURPRISING INSIGHT INTO THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP READ MY LATEST EXPOSITION, JUST POSTED: The Unexpected Truth about US Citizenship in 1790

  3. slcraignbc says:

    Also….

    ” …. The words “people of the United States” and “citizens” are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the “sovereign people,” and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. …”[p405]
    [EXCELLENT! but where’s the attribution?]

    and…..

    ” … It is very clear, therefore, that no State can, by any act or law of its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution, introduce a new member into the political community created by the Constitution of the United States. It cannot make him a member of this community by making him a member of its own.

    [THAT IS UTTERLY FALSE. But it is true if a state made one a citizen without conforming to the uniform rule passed by Congress. If one was made an American by following the uniform rule, then he would be made a member both of the state community and the national community by the very same standard.
    Understand this: the uniform rule was not binding on the States. It was their obligation as members of the union to adopt the rule and make it their law. But they could have chosen not to. The result would have been that some of the persons naturalized by such a state might not be a citizen of the nation, such as non-whites, Asians, Indians, foreign women, immigrants with insufficient residency, or disreputable character.]

    And, for the same reason, it cannot introduce any person or description of persons who were not intended to be embraced in this new political family which the Constitution brought into existence, but were intended to be excluded from it. …”[p406] [referring to free Negros]

    and….

    ” ….It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognized as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else.

    [That is the reason that citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico are not constitutionally eligible to be President.]

    And the personal rights and privileges guaranteed to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded.

    [“by birthright or otherwise” refers to those born as citizens, predestined from conception. A birthright is a right inherited by one’s blood relationship to their parents. Like royal heirs to the throne. It is the birthright of the firstborn to be king. Birth place is irrelevant. Native-birth bestows no “birthright” because common law citizenship is 100% tied to and dependent on the arbitrary, artificially determined factor of birth location.]

    It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States…..”[p407]

    EXCELLENT!! That portrays clearly the genesis reality of a collection of separate nations becoming one people in not just common law heritage but in a new union of American law and government.]

    and, least we forget that in spite of the Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, the 1866 Civil Rights Act and its reiteration in the 13th Amendment the determination of the Taney Court in the Scott V Sanford case stood and making the :collective naturalization” of the Stateless blacks a necessity of the 14th Amendment.

    [NOW THAT IS A LEGITIMATE USE OF THE CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION. The freed slaves were “made” into new natural members of the American nation just like its existing natural citizens. The same was done for the Vietnamese boat people, I believe.]

    ” … It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies when they separated from Great Britain and formed new sovereignties, and took their places in the family of independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were recognised as the people or citizens of a State whose rights and liberties had been outraged by the English Government, and who declared their independence and assumed the powers of Government to defend their rights by force of arms.

    In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument. …”

    Is this quote from the Dredd Scott case? If so, then its logic has been illegitimately maligned since it is unflawed, regardless of the consequences. People want the courts to have ruled in favor of “what was best” instead of what was real, accurate, and constitutional.
    “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.” And let the facts reign as well.

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: