The Non-existent Power of Congress over Citizenship by Descent
February 11, 2015 1 Comment
Primal Duty & Existential Truth
The credibility of the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be President hangs by a handful of extremely thin threads. One is the falsehood that is embraced by virtually the entire political establishment, legal establishment, and lap-dog media. It is the sacrosanct view that anyone born in the United States without a foreign ambassador father is automatically a citizen of the nation by actual American law (not mere policy).
From there they make a mindless leap into fantasyland by asserting that a citizen “at” birth by mandate of government is indistinguishable from being a citizen by descent, by blood, by inheritance, by birthright.
I’ve exploded that belief in a hundred different writings but there is another fallacy that the Obama sycophants rely on. It is concerning the authority of Congress over citizenship. You see, if Congress legitimately can exercise power over the citizenship of those born of citizens, then something that was written in the first naturalization act in 1790 can be claimed to be an exercise of proper congressional power over citizenship, and that in turn leads to the false assumption that natural citizenship can be ignored since Congress wields FULL authority over citizenship.
Thus, using legal legerdemain logic, the view regarding the citizenship of candidates for the presidency could be philosophically manipulated to meet the Constitution’s requirement that he be “no person except a natural born citizen”.
That false connection is then the basis of another mindless leap in the form of the false logic that there are only two forms of citizenship, and if Obama can be claimed to NOT be in the class of the naturalized, then he simply must be in the other class, -which is the natural born.
Their logic for that leap is the false assumption that natural citizenship does not exist but “natural-born” citizenship does, and is not determined by anything natural but by something arbitrary and artificial. That something is an unholy mating of natural law with man-made law, producing an “either…or” definition of what a natural citizen is, with it being either a citizen “at” birth, or…. a citizen “by” birth. That means either a citizen by being born in America or by being born of Americans. “Yep”, they tell you. “It can be either one. Take your pick”.
That is the doctrine proffered by the deceptive lawyer (Maskell) who wrote an opinion for the U.S. Senate for the senators to use to answer the concerns of their constituents regarding the fact that Obama did not meet any sane definition of what he is required to be (namely; a “natural born citizen”), in order to qualify for the office of President, .
A claim that Obama is a natural citizen by descent is never made, -instead they claim that he is magically a citizen equivalent to a “natural-born subject” via traditional Anglo-American common law, which supposedly is the citizenship bestowed by the 14th Amendment on all children born in the U.S. of parents who are subject to the U.S. government.
Thus they redefine the American term “natural born citizen” in terms of the acceptable features of a British “natural-born subject” while pretending that the unacceptable features are not a part of the same picture & definition of what a “natural-born subject” actually was. That of course is denial and resort to fantasy and obfuscation.
Both presumptions are false regarding Obama’s eligibility. His father was not under full subjection to the full authority of Washington because he was a temporary guest of the nation, and not a permanent resident member of it.
By merely being present in the U.S. and attending college for a year on a Visa he was no more fully subject to American authority than if he had drifted across the nation in a helium balloon for a month or so during a round-the-world voyage.
The U.S. airspace is within U.S. jurisdiction. So by their logic, if a foreign mother in the helium balloon gave birth during the drift through U.S. airspace the baby should be declared to be a U.S. citizen. That logic could not be more brain-dead than it is.
Kenyan student Barack Obama could never have been drafted except by the British government, and he could never have been tried for treason either because he was not subject to the political authority that citizens and immigrants are subject to. Guests are always exempt from the duties of the home and the nation. They are not members of the household or national family nor subject to their duties.
And secondly, the American term “natural born citizen” signifies one born as a citizen by birth to citizen parents, while the British term “natural-born subject” (now abandoned), devolved to mean anyone born within the borders of the kingdom to anyone other than a foreign minister or invading warrior.
All native-born subjects were, by British political philosophy, deemed to naturally be subject to the King and thus could be given the same label that was adopted for grouping together both his actual natural subjects as well as his alien-born subjects, thereby ignoring what differentiated them from each other, melding them into a single body based on an entirely manufactured basis; birth-place alone.
Both, having equal rights under the law, needed to be treated equally without discrimination, and so calling them by the same appellation, while legally appropriate, was not logically appropriate. They were also under the British doctrine of “perpetual allegiance“, which meant that they were, and would remain, subjects all of their natural life, with no right whatsoever to change their nationality and reject the authority of the British king and government even though those who gave them life were under no such nationality imprisonment, and could return if they choose to their own country and king with no tie to their former residence or its government.
It also meant that they were under the religious authority of the Church of England (and its leader, the king) when and if the government felt like enforcing that authority.
So that was a system of nationality that the Americans rejected when they formed their new national government. It would not recognize the children of aliens as being Americans unless their father became one. Native-birth did not garner national government approval for national citizenship in an international arena. Children of aliens were aliens just like their father.
In the eyes of the national government no family was divided by multiple nationalities and multiple allegiances.
They all shared the nationality of the head of the family, which was the husband and father, including a foreign bride. Marriage instantly made her an American like her head…. i.e., her husband. Thus, neither of those falsehoods has a legitimate leg to stand on.
Now let’s look at the falsity of the belief in omnipotent congressional authority over citizenship. It stems from presuming an equivalency between the all-powerful Parliament of Great Britain and the “limited powers” authority of Congress allowed by the Constitution.
That presumed equivalent authority was purely a statist’s plutocratic mirage. It never legitimately existed in America because the Constitution, unlike with Britain and Parliament, limit the power of Congress, while Parliament had no such limitation.
More than once during Britain’s long history, its government merged with a foreign nation. The first time was following the successful invasion by the Norman King “William, the Conqueror” in 1066-68 while the second time was in the early 1600’s when Britain adopted the Scottish King as its own monarch since their queen left no heir.
In the first case, the conquering Normans had to integrate with the natives and their functioning government, while in the second case it was the Scots who had to be allowed the benefits of British law.
For the English, the government had to accept the opinion of an important trial court (in the Calvin case) that the alien Scots were equal to Englishmen under English law, not because they were English nor subject to the English government and law, but because they were subject to the English king, who was their own king already.
They were not subject directly to the English Parliament and its laws being as they were foreigners inhabiting a foreign land, but having the same monarch was used as the justification for uniting the two nations under one royal authority,.. eventually,… a century later. Only then did the Scots give up their own self-rule and Scottish Parliament. The two crowns of two nations then merged into one and together they became the United Kingdom.
Parliament, unlimited by a constitution, possessed all authority over nationality which had not already been established by court decisions. It codified what the courts had ruled and made that common law into statutory law. But it could go one step even further: it could make foreigners into new “natural-born subjects” by the power of legal fiction. That fact demonstrates the third reason that a “natural-born subject” was not equivalent to a natural born citizen.
OF and AS
No one in America holds the view that naturalized citizens are natural born citizens. In fact, the view is that they constitute the class of citizens made-up of persons who are not natural born citizens since they were born as foreigners. But in Britain, where discrimination was not allowed, they were viewed in time as being the same as those born of and as British subjects. They were the beneficiaries of special consideration because they were “made” into fictional “natural-born subjects” solely by a specific act of Parliament. Of course only the well-to-do could afford such an act passed on their behalf.
That never happened in America because there was no Parliament in America, nor any such authority given to Congress under the Constitution. Here’s the reality of the situation: Parliament could “make” new natural-born subjects, but could not “unmake” them because they were subjects for life.
Only fraud and lying in one’s application and/or oath would be grounds for cancelling someone’s new British nationality. Otherwise Parliament had no further authority because….no government has ever had the legitimate right to cancel the national membership of those who were natural members of the nation (although the ancient sentence of banishment was just about equivalent to doing so) -even when they assumed such an authority anyway in regard to women. The lone exception is in regard to treason, but even it has never been employed to my knowledge.
[it was the principle behind the legitimacy of killing Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone missile. He forfeited the right to be an American, but no one assumed the role of assuming the authority to nullify his U.S. citizenship. That is because they were unaware of the fundamental right to do so. If not, why not do it? Fear of touching such a sacred primal matter?
The problem was that there was no constitutional desk at which that buck was meant to stop. The courts? The Congress? The President? No one was authorized to do what should have been done, so nothing was done.]
So Parliament’s power had a limit but there was never a reason to acknowledge its limits. It was the same in America as Congress soon developed a plutocratic statist mind-set which viewed the authority of Congress regarding nationality as being almost as powerful as that of the mother country. But it could not accept “bribes” like Parliament did and authorize a bill to make an individual foreigner into a citizen. Why not?
Because of the limits placed on it by the Constitution. It only allowed Congress the authority to write a “uniform rule of naturalization”. Uniform? Why a “uniform rule”, -why not just “a rule”?
Because there were already thirteen separate nations which would comprise the Union of the STATES and they each had their own naturalization statutes or constitutional clauses, -and some were different from others in one or more ways. So the Constitution’s framers decided that the States needed to have one single uniform nation-wide rule for the sake of consistency.
A State could not be allowed to require only one year of residency while another required 5 or 8 or 10 years before citizenship would be granted. That would have resulted in “state shopping” and unequal advantage regarding attracting immigrants.
So Congress wrote a uniform rule and the States adopted it in their naturalization laws for naturalizing immigrants as they had always done in the past. The actual process of naturalization was centered in the courts of record within the individual cities and counties of the States. They recorded births and deaths, marriages and divorces, property purchases, etc.
Eventually, federal courts took some of that action for themselves, as authorized in the congressional acts, -after they had come into existence, but Congress was not in the picture at all until it felt the need to rewrite the uniform rule.
So Congress had no power to “make” citizens, much less natural born ones, but it had power to determine the rules by which foreigners could become citizens (as constitutionally authorized) but it did not stop there.
In the years following the Civil War, the American government began to make treaties [the Bancroft Treaties] with foreign governments regarding issues of citizenship which focused mainly on American women who married foreign men.
Congress, feeling like Parliament, felt it had a right and duty to state that foreign men who married American women and then took their wives and moved back to Europe instead of remaining in America, would find that their wives, by law, were no longer Americans after a couple years of residency abroad. Congress had made itself powerful enough to annul the U.S. citizenship of natural born American women, along with that of naturalized foreigners who did the same thing.
That went on for eighty years! No one disagreed with Congress. No politician, or President, or academic, or Attorney General. No one. Why? Because everyone likes a strong leader, and Congress was showing patriotic firmness.
But someone who was stripped of citizenship rebelled against the unequal treatment given by the treaties. The 14th Amendment was all about equal treatment of persons in all states and so its principle was invoked. Why would equal treatment end at the water’s edge? What gave Congress the right to discriminate and thereby create de facto superior and inferior classes of citizens?
It turned out that there was no good answer in favor of the government policy and treaties. That is why when he sued in federal court, the Supreme Court eventually sided with him and shut-down the government’s long-established authority, making everyone look like the elitist unAmerican unconstitutional oligarchs that they had become. They usurped power that was not given them by the Constitution.
So if Congress has no constitutional authority to “excommunicate” American citizens for arbitrary, rather than solely treasonous reasons, that carries a huge implication for the view that Congress had the authority to make and unmake natural born citizens, -thereby defining who would be eligible to be President. That impacts greatly the interpretation and understanding of the nature of the words of the unique naturalization “uniform rule” written by the first U.S. Congress in 1790.
It stated that the children of U.S. citizens born abroad are to “be considered as natural born citizens”. That prompts the question: “considered by whom?” By Joe Citizen? Or by government officers? Joe Citizen’s viewpoint or knowledge was irrelevant to Congress, but the behavior of government officers was not.
All later rewrites omitted the words “natural born”, mandating that they “be considered as citizens of the United States” (as apposed to being foreigners).
The significance of the wording of the first act was that it impacted not only citizenship but also presidential eligibility since its mandate meant that all male children born abroad are to be understood to be eligible to serve as President.
That was a message to all State election officials who had authority over their State ballots during presidential elections. It served absolutely no other purpose. Only the President was required to be a natural born citizen, and so the term had no other connection to American life. By its inclusion, foreign-born American sons were not to be barred from the ballots for being considered ineligible.
The false idea that some cling to is that Congress had a plenary power to “make” natural born citizens, as well as to unmake them in later acts which only protected their citizenship but not their presidential eligibility. But what would be the source of such congressional authority?
There is none since the authorization in the Constitution is quite plain and clear. Congress was not Parliament and could not make fictional natural born citizens. All it could do was write a uniform rule for foreigners and their children.
It could not alter or regulate or nullify the nationality status of persons born as citizens, with one lone historical Anglo-American exception: the foreign-born children of foreign-born-and-raised-and-residing Americans were to not inherit American citizenship from their foreign-&-American father who had never lived in the United States.
That statement conveyed that the RIGHT of citizenship by DESCENT would not apply to them (“the right of citizenship shall not descend…”). It did not say that the legal “right” of citizenship would not be granted to them. The right of descent is not a given right since it is a natural right based solely on descent, or patrilineal inheritance, aka; blood lineage. That shows something immensely important.
It’s that the citizenship of children born abroad of an American father and mother is not citizenship that is given by government. That of course means that it is natural citizenship since it is not legal citizenship extended by lawmakers. It is citizenship by right, not by permission.
That shows that Congress had no authority to “grant” even undefined citizenship to those born of American parents (plural) so it is impossible to argue that it had power to make undefined citizens into natural born citizens and to later cancel that designation by its own arbitrary will.
The authority expressed in the naturalization acts is not authority over the citizenship of the foreign-born children of Americans, (with the second-generation exception) but over the government officials who were ordered by the acts to view the foreign-born children of American couples as the acts ordered.
Was Congress exercising plenary power over their citizenship itself? To argue that it was is to be ignorant of the authority that Congress was given and allowed, as well as that allowed by Parliament, -which had no authority over the national membership of natural born Englishmen, -only over that of foreign-born, foreigner-fathered alien subjects who could pay to become officially recognized as a “natural-born subject”.
[The native-born children of immigrants to Britain were outsiders and so laws were needed as directives to legally assimilate them. No law was needed to assimilate and integrate Englishmen into English society since they were born as natural members of it. Can you imagine Parliament passing a law that stated that from henceforth all Englishmen shall be deemed to be Englishmen?]
Yet the defenders of Barry Obama insist that Congress had such a power and used it by ordering by its authority the citizen-izing of foreign-born American children who supposedly were otherwise legally aliens! That would be to order that American children be “made” into American citizens by congressional authority, rather than ordering that their “right of descent” be protected against misunderstanding by government officers steeped in British native-birth law.
The avenues for possible misunderstanding about U.S. citizenship are quite numerous. They include:
1. Not understand the difference between State citizenship and national citizenship, and how the former was father of the later.
2. Not understanding that the common law citizenship provided by the States was no longer the common law subjectship of Britain.
3. Not understanding that the internationally-oriented view of the national government was contrary to that of the domestically-oriented States, resulting in a possible conflict over the citizenship of certain foreign-resident persons who were born while in America of foreign non-immigrant fathers.
4. Not understanding that the words of the British term of legal artifice; “natural-born subject” is significantly different from the ordinary English language meaning of a natural born citizen.
5. Not understanding that 14th Amendment citizenship is not based on subjection to U.S. authority alone, nor native-birth alone, but a combination of the two.
6. Not understanding that the subjection that an immigrant father was required to be under in order for citizenship from birth to be granted to his alien-fathered, born-in-America child was the same subjection that American men were under: the obligation to defend the nation by bearing arms in her military, -and possibly dying in battle.
Not all foreign immigrant men were capable of or suited for military service but they belonged to the class of persons on whose shoulders rested the existential citizen obligation of national defense. So the general law of native-birth citizenship for their children was not based on a specific correlation to them individually, but to the class of which they were a part. That class shouldered a responsibility.
That responsibility is the fundamental obligation to be one of the defenders of liberty & national survival, and only male citizen and male immigrants were subject to it. Only they could father citizens. Neither tribe-born Native-Americans, foreign ministers, or foreign visitors were under that obligation because they remained subject to their own sovereign authority.
7. Not understanding that foreign visitors have never been “subject to the jurisdiction” required of citizens and immigrants and never will be in any nation on earth other than Mad Max tyrannies established by radical Islamists.
8. And there is one more; the error of not understanding the truth about minors and subjection.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. (14th Amendment)
An Obama defender wrote: “The 14th Amendment only refers to “persons born or naturalized,” not to their parents. …it does not matter if Obama’s father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (even though he was). What matters is whether his child was born subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”
A baby can be born in the United States but no baby anywhere in the world can be born subject to government unless a government is a totalitarian state which claims ownership over all souls, -including babies.
Minors are not subject to any of the obligations of adult citizens and immigrants. The jurisdiction that the amendment refers to is not in regard to rules or laws that determine what is illegal, (and which children must also not violate) but refers to an elemental, primal, fundamental, existential obligation of free men to preserve their own family, society, and nation. That is the existential truth that the Obama defenders refuse to acknowledge as they reject anything that is not purely and simply “legal truth”.
Legal truth may be and must be based on existential truth or moral truth, but it may not even state its reason for existing, -as is the case with the death tax. Without such a reason, there is no way to say what the fundamental principle or justification behind a law even is, so it goes uncontemplated, and LAW (and Regulation) becomes just an arbitrary god-like power controlling all individuals.
No minor or women is subject to the duty of national defense. Only the adult males are subject, whether single or a father, but the minor son will one day replace the father and become in adulthood the inheritor of that duty.
So the subjection required by the 14th Amendment is not superficial civilian mandates to not break laws and to pay taxes. Obedience to those municipal rules will not save a nation from an existential threat. Only obedience to one’s primal duty can protect a nation.
Barack Obama’s father was under such a duty, -toward Kenya, not the United States. It’s jurisdiction over American men and male immigrants did not extend to him, nor any foreign visitor or minister. Like father… like son.
His son was not born subject to such a duty either. Bear in mind that in 1866 when the amendment was written, nationality was passed solely from the father to his children, -and wife. They were chips off the old block, cut from the same cloth, peas in the same pod. One family; one nationality.
That points to the fact that the national government detested the unnatural situation of a family having more than one national membership and allegiance. That was anathema to American values, and to many, if not most, governments to this day. For a man to be considered both American and British was an impossibility in the founder’s world. Not only would such a citizen not be a natural born citizen but such a citizen would not even exist.
It is not uncommon that a nation will not allow dual-citizenship. Why would it be anything else in early America which stood alone on the vast world stage as the lone democratic representative republic that defended individual rights and rejected royalty and monarchy?
“Do you want to be an American? Then you must become only an American. You must renounce all loyalty to your king and utterly reject all of his government’s authority over you. Otherwise you will remain a foreigner, and your minor children as well, since they are subject to you, a foreigner, (and by extension, your foreign government).”
That was the view of the national government, and it was a perfectly appropriate view, but in total conflict with the native-birth citizenship allowed by the States.
The natural view was that children were subject to their fathers, and not to government, so it is a misconception that babies born in America to non-immigrant foreigners are somehow or other actually directly subject to the authority of our national government. Such a view could only be true of the children of slaves. Not free men and free women.
All of these erroneous misunderstandings have been relied upon to defend the unconstitutional reign of the Progressive messiah by distorting the facts to make him seem to be somehow constitutionally eligible, -instead of actually being what he is; -a travesty against the Constitution, the American people, the American government, and the future.
by Adrien Nash February 2015, obama–nation.com