The Unexpected Truth about US Citizenship in 1790
February 6, 2015 3 Comments
Naturalization Revelations from the First Congress
“Real science is all about trying to prove your theory wrong. You do everything you can to prove it wrong, then have other people do what they can to prove it wrong. When all of you fail at doing that, when the theory has been refined such that it fits all the evidence and you can’t figure out how else to test it, then it is most likely the truth.
That is what scientific rigor is about. It isn’t about coming up with a theory, ignoring data you don’t like, showing it to a few people who agree with you, and saying ‘Ok, we proved this true and nobody else can look at it.’“ -Richard P. Feynman (1918 – 1988), Physicist
There are two different and opposite approaches or attitudes toward truth. One is the scientific approach which only seeks to discover the facts. We can call those who follow that approach “the factualists”. The other is the attitude of dogmatic religion and politics which only seeks and accepts that which validates its entrenched beliefs. We can call them “the doctrinalists”.
If a truth is present which does not comport with what is in the catechism of their beliefs, then they reject it no matter how easily it is proven nor how obvious. Galileo: “Just look through the telescope and you will see with your own eyes what I am saying is true.” “No Galileo, we do not need a telescope nor to look through one because we already know the truth.” Truth is what they believe it to be, because for their own mental structure, it must be or else the house that they have built of their true or false concepts will crumble.
That is the situation regarding most of the important matters in life, including that of presidential eligibility because the President can single-handedly ruin a nation. Exhibit #1. Venezuela. Exhibit #2. Cuba. Exhibit #3 the United States? The defenders of Barack Hussein Obama Jr., as well as their staunch opponents, exhibit characteristics of both. They may be sincere lovers of all facts that support their beliefs, but intrinsically blind and mentally closed when it comes to any facts that run counter.
The closing of the mind is something that is not conscious because it happens before it can even become conscious. It’s faster than a mouse trap. The library or mental parlor of unbiased contemplation simply shuts tight any door that would allow in anything that is unacceptable and offensive. Inside one may be surrounded by walls of books filled with facts and truths, but none of them contain the truth that is unwanted and unacceptable. Those books are banished. That’s because they contain toxic facts that would make their mental house of cards collapse. Even the odor of them is offensive, like coming across an open sewer or cesspool at Disneyland. Intolerable!
So how do people maintain beliefs that are false if they are aware of counter facts and are honest? Because they close the windows of their minds when confronting them, like a car going through a car wash. In a real quest for the truth that scenario would have all of the windows open. That’s not a good analogy but is close enough.
The result of the closing of the mind is that little to nothing unacceptable gets in or even sticks to the window. When attempting to have an honest discussion of unacceptable facts, one finds that it cannot happen because the opponent’s mind will promptly forget what it does not like or will distort it into ammunition to shoot back. It will not address what has been stated because it is Kryptonite to their cherished personal doctrine of how reality is structured.
With some, their response will be amazingly competent and knowledgeable, but will be off-base, warped, or will rely on flawed logic that’s based either on pedestrian thinking, ambiguity of language, or sophistical logic. Very often it is all three interdependent. That makes it almost impossible to counter because it seems almost bullet-proof, wise, and too complex to refute.
At the other end of the spectrum are the “low thinkers”, the low information pontificators. They are a kind of intellectual D student.
“I am Groot.” They appreciate intelligence, honor it, aspire to it, but are not wired for it.
Well, in order to cut through a whole lot of the false claims and erroneous conceptions surrounding the subject of nationality in America, we would do well to deeply analyze one of the first acts ever passed by Congress. It is a revelation like no other.
1790 “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”
· …and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States,
· (-which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, -and…record such Application, and the proceedings thereon);
· -thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
We can condense and rearrange the words of that clause to better reflect what it is actually stating:
~thereupon taking the oath or affirmation, such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States.
That reveals the actual means by which a foreigner becomes an American. It is one thing and one thing only, and it is not the authority of government. It is the oath itself. By speaking the oath’s renouncing words against one’s own homeland and obedience to its national government, one basically stated: “I’m dead to you!” thereby rejecting and renouncing their own foreign leader (their king or monarch) by name (!) and all of the authority of his government. That vow, oath, or pledge was taken as psychologically and spiritually honest and true, and severed their link to it and its power over them, ending their subjectship or citizenship in their former nation.
They would then be a stateless person if not for the vow of allegiance portion of the oath which binds them completely to the United States, its Constitution, and Laws. By speaking the words of full obedience and allegiance to the authority and law of the United States, one becomes, by the effect of that solemn sworn commitment, a member of the American nation. By giving oneself to America, they are thereby fully accepted and embraced into the American family, automatically.
No government official gives them citizenship.
No government law gives them citizenship. All that government courts of record did was:
(a) to decide who was allowed inside the first “gate” of naturalization by discriminating and weeding out all undesirables who did not meet the standards that the Congress expected of foreigners. [The standards mentioned in the act regarded
one’s race (white), one’s length of residency, and one’s moral character.]
(b) to administer the oath
(c) to record the application and proceeding.
The Constitution only authorized Congress to write a uniform rule for all of the separate nation-states of the Union to obligate them to follow one single national nationalization set of rules. After Congress passed the new national rule in 1790 it had no other authority. It did not have power to make foreigners into U.S. citizens, and it especially did not have power to nullify or rescind anyone’s citizenship.
Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have the power to…borrow money,… to regulate commerce… to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,… to coin money… etc. ” THAT’S IT! No authority over the citizenship of citizens or their children, and no authority over the naturalization of foreigners. It only had authority to compose the national standard that the state and future federal courts of record would adhere to in the selection process for who was allowed inside the first gate, -inside of the court sanctuary which was the only place that the oath could be spoken with authority recognized by the government.
Then, for those allowed inside after passing the approval process, there was only one thing to do; speak the oath directly to the judge who administered it, and presto! the second gate opened automatically. That gate was the citizenship gate. The oath itself opened it, not the government nor the Congress nor the Constitution.
All the government did was record the event so that there was recorded proof that the foreign man had at a certain time and place turned himself into an American by his “oath of Allegiance and Renunciation”.
“And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”
There are three different ways to read that since it does not make crystal clear any position regarding the citizenship of the children. More than one position was possible, including the position of (a) the State governments and their citizenship laws (b) the Congress and their citizenship policy and uniform rule, and (c) whether or not the common law and statutory citizenship of the States was in conflict with the policy of the Congress.
So here are the three possibilities, which people with different views can adopt to suit their concepts and preferences:
1. “And the children of such persons…” (the actual wording)
2. “And the foreign-born children of such persons…”
3. “And all of the children of such persons…”.
Neither the word “foreign” nor “all” is found in the rule, but one or the other of them should have been intended by the authors of that sentence unless it was written to be intentionally vague and ambiguous so no one would notice and object.
Object to what? Well, if it had said “foreign-born children” of the naturalized were considered citizens then that would have indicated that the U.S. born, by not being included, were outside of the authority of the act.
That could only be true if they were already recognized by the national government as being U.S. citizens based on having been born within the U.S. under the native-birth rule of common law.
But if it had said “all children of such persons so naturalized…” then the native-born children would have been recognized as not being considered U.S. citizens because the act was recognizing them as citizens via their father’s naturalization and not via their native-birth.
So which is it? And why should anyone care? The only thing that hung in the balance was the minor issue of who was eligible to serve as President. If those tens of thousands of children who were born in America before their father became an American were not U.S. citizens when born, then they certainly could not be considered natural born citizens as the President is required to be. Other than that, there was no significance to the presence or absence of either of the words “foreign-born” or “all”.
So one must parse the wording of the act carefully and thoughtfully to draw an accurate conclusion as to the intent of Congress. We face two possibilities; either those who voted for it understood its meaning in a specific way, or they understood that it was vague enough that no one could say for certain what its minimal wording meant.
To deduce what they meant we must first decide whether or not we have the authority to insert supposedly implied words where there are none. Without knowing exactly what they were thinking when writing it, we can’t confidently say that they definitely perceived the ambiguity, (or possible ambiguity) that could be read into it.
If we assume that they failed to perceive the possible ambiguity, then we conclude that they were not as strict with the wording as they should have been and as the lawyers that came after them obviously were as made apparent by the greatly extended wording of the 1795 act.
If we assume that their wording was deliberately not definitive, then its “true meaning” cannot be assigned to anything other than the words that were used because we can’t resort to a crystal ball to discern it.
So if we are to avoid presumption which might result in ascribing a meaning which is counter to that which Congress intended, then all we can do is accept the implications of the words as they exist. By those words we come to a conclusion that the act was not excluding any children of the naturalized foreigner in its message.
It differentiated between the minor children on one and only one basis; their residence in the United States. If they were “dwelling” in the U.S., then they were considered to be U.S. citizens. If they were not, then they were probably older teens who chose to remain in Europe with their grandparents or uncles and remain European, or chose to leave their parents and return to Europe.
That straight-forward view of the act’s limited words carries a huge implication regarding the Congressional attitude toward common law citizenship given by the States, with Congress, in effect, rejecting any policy of recognizing dual nationality with its divided allegiance between two governments that could find themselves at war, as was our situation with both England and France, although we avoided making an open declaration of war against the French government that was robbing and confiscating hundreds of our merchant ships. Not so with the belligerent British, resulting in the war of 1812.
In the eyes of the national government, no American could possess allegiance to another government and its leadership. That was why the oath of Renunciation & Allegiance was so strict, like no other naturalization oath on Earth. Here is the oath that is still administered today:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
Does that sound like an oath that shows a government attitude of “live and let live” when it comes to divided allegiance? It sounds like you were either an American or you were a foreigner; not both!
That national government position would mean that all of the sons of immigrants, tens of thousands of them, were excluded from the office of the President regardless of the fact that they had no control over when their father had become an American. An all-American patriotic war-hero son of Liberty could be unqualified to serve as his nation’s President by simply being born the day before his father took the oath. Surely, lots of fathers and sons did not view that national policy as fair or justifiable. That was the genesis of the interpretational distortion of the meaning of the words “natural born citizen” as written in the Constitution.
Those disenfranchised from the presidency due to their common law native-birth citizenship allowed by the laws of the States (while their father was an alien) had a natural desire for that to not be true, and the way it could be declared to not be true was to pervert the meaning of what a natural citizen is by including native-birth as a secondary factor equal to American parents and the right of descent.
That perversion continues stronger than ever in this day and age because of the double* perversion that allowed Barack Obama to become the unconstitutional President of the UNITED STATES.
[*because his father was not an American immigrant but merely a foreign Visa card student, Obama Jr. was born solely as a Commonwealth Kenyan and is not to this day a real common law citizen at all since his birth circumstance does not conform with the 14th Amendment’s requirement of being born subject to the full jurisdiction of the American government.]
That is not the policy of the U.S. executive branch, but it is the actual American law. Guess what, -they don’t follow the actual law because its meaning has also been perverted.]
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: “
That shows that natural citizenship was an unalienable right of the children of all Americans and it was not the result of where they were born but to whom they were born; namely, an American father.
Foreign born children of Americans serving or living abroad were not inferior nor superior to native-born children. They were no more and no less. They were Equal per a fundamental American right. They did not lack a right that the native-born did not have, specifically the right of citizenship by blood, by descent, by inheritance.
That was the right of all Americans. Americans retain their national sovereignty anywhere they go in the world, and one of the rights of that sovereignty is to pass their national membership on to their progeny. All children born as Americans by being born OF Americans are born as natural citizens. That means that jus soli common law citizenship was irrelevant since American children were automatically American citizens because they were born that way by right of blood (jus sanguinis).
Much ignorance has been expressed in opinionating that such an origin of citizenship only applied outside of the United States and existed solely by the authority of Congress to allow it as an exception to native-birth citizenship. That is a purely imaginary doctrine of the philosophical mind based on a long-chain distortion of fact. The first naturalization act blows that dogma to smithereens.
Congress had no such authority. All Americans had that birthright. All citizen parents had the right of including their children in their State and American national membership. They owned that membership as a fundamental political possession that they could pass on to their own flesh and blood.
“Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed [prohibited] by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.”
To reinforce the fact that Congress had no authority to grant citizenship, just contemplate the above words which show that the still semi-sovereign STATES had both the power to naturalize aliens as well as to block their naturalization. That was an authority that remained with them under the 9th and 10th Amendments, and continued for about a century from our founding.
by adrien nash feb. 2015 obama–nation.com