The Overlooked Truth about Citizenship, the Presidency and Rafael Cruz

Ted Cruz is running for the office of President of the United State, -an office that is open to all American citizens who were born in America, or to all American citizens who were born of American parents, or either of those two, -or who was not one or the other but both! 

Which is it???

The answer determines whether or not Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindhal and Marco Rubio are constitutionally qualified to be the U.S. President.  The Constitution mandates that “No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of President…”

“NO PERSON” is clearly an exclusionary qualification, not inclusionary, so the authors were ordering that certain citizens were to not be allowed to serve as President.  In ignorant-land, the question is raised; “Does that include all citizens except naturalized citizens, or are other citizens excluded as well?

The correct answer will reveal who is and who is not eligible to be President.

Who also might be excluded?  There are five other possibilities, and they are:

  1. the foreign-born children of  immigrants who become naturalized citizens;
  2. the U.S. born children of foreign immigrants,
  3. the U.S. born children of non-immigrants,
  4. the foreign-born children of American couples, and
  5. the foreign-born children of only one American parent.

Each of those groups individually constitute a very small percentage of the people in the United States, and all together might make up maybe 5%.  If the Constitution excluded all of them, the numbers in today’s world would be significant, but the percentage would be almost insignificant.

But in the case of Ted Cruz, the circumstance of his birth situation puts him, like Barack Obama, in a category that is almost unique.  Are such unique situations allowed by the Constitution’s prohibition of “no persons, except…”?

One might suspect that if those two are proclaimed to be eligible, then everyone must be eligible except the naturalized citizens.  The reason that that is wrong has been explain in a couple hundred expositions that I’ve spent four years writing.  But the question about Ted Cruz still remains because his birth situation was different from all of the others, and that is because he is known to have been born outside of the U.S. borders.

That does not matter if both parents are Americans because natural American citizenship is passed down from generation to generation by right of descent, as was the case with John McCain and his Panamanian birth.  It didn’t matter where he was born because he was born of sovereign American citizens who possessed the unalienable right of their national membership being inherited by their progeny.

But that natural right is only possessed by American couples who form an American family, -not by a single American parent married to a foreigner, as was the case with Barack Obama and Ted Cruz.  They both had foreign fathers.

Those who don’t know these facts think that Ted Cruz, like Obama, if born outside of U.S. borders, cannot be eligible to be President.  They know that in that case the 14th Amendment would not apply to them since it requires native-birth to immigrant parents before mere “at birth” legal citizenship is bestowed to a child of aliens.

They also know that natural citizenship is only obtained from parents of the same nationality; “like produces like”, “same produces same”.  Dissimilar produces nothing natural since the fundamental principle of life is that male and female of the same origin produce off-spring of that same origin.  Elephants produce elephants and citizens produce citizens.

Elephants and rhinos do not produce anything, but if they did, it would not be a natural member of the groups to which the parents belong. It would be an unnatural hybrid, cross-breed, or half-blood.  The same principle applies in the political realm as in the natural realm, hence the addition of the word “natural” to the words “born citizen”.

That was necessary because there were and are two different kinds of born citizens; those who are nature-made & citizen-born, and those who are man-made or law-made & alien-born.  They are the citizen-children native-born of immigrants, or of a single American parent and a foreign parent.

So the framers’ of the Constitution, lead by General George Washington, choose to add the meaning of “natural” to the citizenship required of the President and Vice-President.  That excluded all hybrid, dual-citizen candidates who had a foreign father with a foreign allegiance, along with the naturalized and the native-born of aliens.

Not allowing mere native-birth alone to be sufficient qualification was wise on its face, but not fair in application.  That is because, while it barred the native-born children of foreign fathers who never became, and never wished to come, Americans, (and may have moved back to Europe where they raised their “American child” as a foreigner)  it also barred the patriotic native-born children of America immigrants who were not allowed to take the oath of Renunciation & Allegiance until after five years or more of residence.

The delay meant that their American children, made citizens by the naturalization law of each of the semi-sovereign States, and later Congress also, were born not as natural citizens-born-of-citizens but instead were alien-born and thus forever forbidden from serving their country as its leader.

Well, with a lot of immigrants having sons during the long years of waiting for eligibility to become an American, there were lots of disenfranchised American sons and fathers who strongly disagreed with that fate.  The result?  It was never raised as an issue by anyone, ever.  It was left unaddressed and undecided.

It has still never been addressed because Obama had an America mother and a non-immigrant father and no previous Presidential candidate was known to have been born of foreigners.  The issue was semi-permanently swept under the rug.

Many, or most, hold the misconception that we are Americans because we were born in America, rather than because we were born as Americans by our right of descent  due to a blood lineage connection to American Citizen parents,  -i.e., -the national membership we inherited from them.

They believe that native-birth citizenship applies not just to those alien-born children for which it was allowed, but also to those who chose to allow it, even though the allowance was not for themselves and their own children but for those who had no right of membership in a society to which they were foreign just like their foreign father who was still subject to a foreign power.

People have the mistaken impression that the basis of citizenship in the United States is written down in federal law, but in fact it is not.  All that is written is that which allows citizenship for those 4% or so who have no right to it.  None of them are natural citizens nor are born of citizen parents.  The rules are written down for the exceptions and not for the non-exceptions.

The rules do not need to be written when they apply to essentially 100% of the population, as was once the case in places like Japan and 18th century Hawaii.  But in a nation in which many immigrants are always arriving, rules must be written for the exceptions to the norm of automatic inherited natural citizenship.

Those rules are the rules found in American law.  The unwritten rule of natural citizenship is not written anywhere, and that is why so many are unaware of its existence and the origin of their own national membership.

So then where can one find it?  One must go deeper than statutory law and constitutional provision and examine the bedrock principles of America’s “Organic Law”.

The Organic Law of the United States consists of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Ordinance of the Northwest Territories, and the U.S. Constitution.  One could rightly add that they are reflected and enshrined in many of the first constitutions of the independent States of America which contained blunt statements about American principles and rights, and many of them still do, having never been abridged of much of their original philosophical and religious content.

So what do we find in the bedrock principles of America?  We find fundamental human rights.  And who has those rights?  Everyone.  That is because of human equality.  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

And what is one of the premier rights of all free people?

It is that of belonging, or membership, -membership in one’s own family and clan and colony and state and nation. Natural membership is a bedrock, fundamental right of all off-spring of all members, always, regardless of any circumstances (foreign birth) other than totally unnatural circumstances (born and raised in a foreign land by citizen parents who were also born and raised in a foreign land).

The defenders of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional presidency rely not on any principle to defend him but solely on the opinions of judges and political and legal “authorities” who have relied on the same from earlier generations going back hundreds of years during which all knowledge of the principle of national membership was lost due to the totally unnatural situation that arose in Britain, twice,  in which a foreign nation had to be incorporated into the kingdom and law of England [Normandy and Scotland].

To accomplish that, a change in the meaning of common English words had to be forced on the judicial and legal systems.  The drastic change that had to be enforced was the change of the meaning of “natural”.  It had to be given a fictional meaning, -a meaning that would change the term in which it was used into a fiction of law as a term of legal artifice, aka, a legal term of “art”.

Before foreign nations had to be assimilated, the term “natural subject” meant a subject by nature, by blood inheritance and lineage, by ancestry. Children of Englishmen or Brits were born as subjects just like their fathers.  But those born of the new foreigners had to be recognized as their new equals and co-subjects of the Crown.

To make that happen in a non-discriminatory manner required that they both be referred to by a single term instead of by two terms like “subject-born” and “alien-born”.

The new term to describe the new national designation of subjects of the Crown was the single term: “natural-born subject”.  It included both the concept of being a natural subject as well as being a born subject, i.e., -one made, at birth, a subject by law.  So by that combo-term, the natural membership of the natives was combined with the legal membership provided by law for native-born children of the new “foreign” subjects from the newly added nation.  The result was that everybody was equal and defined by the same label.

That label was brought to the new world and was used in all of the colonies right up to and beyond the revolution.  Some political hacks continued to use it for decades after the Constitution was written and the new United States was formed, referring to natural born citizens as natural-born subjects.  Clearly, the term was ingrained into their British-law-educated brains.

And that truth is the background for all of the misunderstanding today, because the British mind-set of national membership by mandate of government is still infecting and rotting the minds of Americans who do not know their own sovereign rights as freemen who are NOT subjects of any king or government but instead are the kings of the government.

The dichotomy under a monarch is that of: King on the top; subject on the bottom. The king, as the divinely appointed ruler per the doctrine of “the Divine Right of Kings”, was the rightful lord and master of the population that was in this world to serve him as his subjects.

In America, when it comes to national membership, aka, citizenship, the people still hold to that view of themselves as the subjects of The  G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T, with it on top and themselves on the bottom as subjects of whatever “the Law” is and makes them.  But that view is in violation of American organic law and in fact is even treasonous towards it.

That is because American principles reject the sovereignty of both king and government and instead view We, the People as the sovereigns of our democratic representative republic, -both home-state and national.  That makes a profound difference in how the law is interpreted.

Any and every interpretation which violates that fundamental American stance regarding the sovereignty of the People is treasonous to America’s organic law.  Well guess what?

The entrenched, institutionalized, establishment consensus understanding of citizenship law does exactly that. It views citizenship as ultimately determined by law and not by nature.  It applies the rules written for the exceptions class and applies it to the rule-maker class and their children.  That makes them essentially equal and on the same level, -as if the owner of a house is defined not as “the owner” but as “an inhabitant” no different from a tenant renting a room.  Gee, that does not seem to match reality.

And the reality is this: Americans are KINGS!   WE, the PEOPLE, are the Sovereigns and not our back-stabbing government lackeys.  That reality comes with particular presidential eligibility implications.

It means that we, just like a KING, can travel anywhere and still be who and what we are, and our “wives” can have a baby enter the world anywhere in the world and it is still, regardless of foreign location, a member of our “royal” sovereign family and heir to our position in the American “kingdom”.

Just as a foreign-born child of His Royal Majestic was still a royal-born Crown Prince and in line for the Throne, so also, foreign-born children of sovereign Americans are, by inheritance, citizen-born natural members of the kingdom of their parents.

Do you grasp just how silly that truth makes the misconception appear that any and every native-born person, –and no others, is a natural American citizen (and thus presidency eligible) and that anyone who was not is an alien at birth if not for the “permission” of unexplained and misunderstood U.S. naturalization law?

How does that truth relate to Ted Cruz?  It relates because of the fundamental organic law principle of equality.  For most of American history, equality did not include the subject of gender, -of women’s “rights”.  An impoverished semi-literate ex-slave who happened to be male had more civic rights than the wife of the President of the United States!  Gender equality did not exist, but it does now, and that impacts Ted Cruz in a big way.

In the earlier American eras, a baby’s nationality was always determined by the head of the family, which was always the father, unless… he was dead, unknown, or…. a stateless person.  Then only the citizenship of the mother was passed to her child at birth.

So either by the natural principle of gender equality or by the legal substitution of necessity, a mother, like that of Ted Cruz, could pass her citizenship to her child and it would not be dependent on the permission of government.  Instead it would be automatic because it would be natural and organic, as well as needed to prevent giving birth to a stateless person.

Now speaking of a stateless person, the mother of Ted Cruz could not pass her nationality to her child in a natural manner if the father was (a) living, (b) known, and (c) not a stateless person.  That is because the father’s nationality would have to be taken into account, not just hers.

All three would be needed in order for her son to not acquire her national membership by natural law, and it turns out that only two were true.

His father was living and known, and presumably married to his mother, but he was not a citizen of any nation; he was a stateless person with no citizenship to compete with that of the mother who would otherwise require the intervention of U.S. law to grant her U.S. citizenship to their child.

Rather, their child needed no positive law according to American organic law principles because he was an American by descent, by blood relationship, by birthright, with her gender being irrelevant in this day and age.

The reason that the father of Ted Cruz (Rafael Cruz) was not a citizen of Cuba (as he was when he escaped its clutches to become a college student in the U.S.), was because the nation and government of which he had been a member ceased to exist.  You can’t be a citizen of a non-existing government.  Two years after he fled, Castro succeeded in overthrowing the brutal Batista Cuban government and then proceeded to erect the Communist Castro government.

Rafael Cruz was never a citizen of that government, its Constitution, nor the new nation that it created.  He was more than a refugee and was therefore accepted for asylum and given a permanent resident Green Card.  So, he was no longer Cuban, and was not an American, -but later became a naturalized Canadian citizen while he and his wife lived and worked in Canada.

That Canadian citizenship had no impact on any of them except in regard to paying taxes and having civic rights and… Rafael being eligible to obtain a passport and no longer being a stateless person.

The question that needs to be answered in order for Ted Cruz to be a viewed as fully a natural citizen by his mother alone, is: “Did his father, and possibly his mother also, though not likely, become a naturalized citizen of Canada before their son was born? -or was it after he was born?”

That’s so long ago that it is almost an arcane and irrelevant thing to focus on, -but it determines whether or not Ted Cruz can technically be called a natural born citizen to the full meaning of the term.

If he naturalized before Ted was born, (about four years into their 8 year stay in Canada), then even without them knowing it, Canadian law bestowed citizenship on Ted at birth because British native-birth common law was also an original part of the British territory, colonies and nation of Canada.

If Ted was born with Canadian citizenship through common law, that fact is irrelevant to natural law and natural citizenship, just as when a pregnant American mother gets stuck in traffic at the Niagara Falls border crossing and gives birth in an ambulance trying to make its way to the American side.

Where her and her American husband’s child was born is irrelevant to determining whether or not the child is a natural born citizen.  That is instead determined by natural factors only, (parentage) and borders and laws have no relationship to it.  They are not a part of the natural realm with its natural relationships.

But, if he also obtained Canadian citizenship through a Canadian father, then it could be said that he was Canadian in two ways, one of which was not irrelevant, even though it was transient.  It could have been notably transient and thus in a real sense almost immaterial if he had become naturalized just before Ted’s birth.  That would have meant that he was living as a Canadian for only four years of his life but abandoned that role when he returned to the United States three years after Ted was born.

As an aside of curiosity, it should be noted that the Canadian oath of citizenship is quite different from the American oath of Renunciation & Allegiance.  This would have been the oath that was spoken or  signed by Rafael Cruz when he became a Canadian citizen:

~ the original Oath of Allegiance: “I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Sixth, His Heirs and Successors, according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

No doubt there are some private clubs with a longer and deeper oath than that.  It was nowhere near as serious as that of the American nation’s oath because the nation of Canada was not the result of a bloody revolution.

To be a Canadian was not anywhere near being equivalent to being an American.  It was just one of a large family of nations within the British Commonwealth, -not an original, unique, exceptional beacon of Liberty in the world.

For an American to become a Canadian would be akin to a child becoming a member of an aunt or uncle’s family (they are kinfolk) or to a large adult man becoming a member of his youngest sister’s little family (their population is very small in comparison to the US).

So, from a real-world perspective we have five considerations to weigh: Canadian citizenship was the opposite of citizenship in an alien nation like Soviet Russia or Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, -or Cuba.

Canada was not a “major” nation which could be a source of conflict or competition with the U.S. because its population and military were/ are so small.

Canada, as our neighbor and fellow child of British colonization and British civil rights, was not alien to American values but was highly compatible.

He might have obtained Canadian citizenship for purely economic reasons, whatever they may have been, or convenience and a passport.

And his naturalization may not have even required swearing an oath since merely signing one may have been the norm at the place and time of his naturalization.

Of course none of them are relevant if he obtained citizenship after his son was born. In that case, only his American mother provided him natural citizenship at birth.

Let’s now move from all of that confusing fog to something rock solid, and that is what the motive was for the “natural born citizen” requirement.  It was intended to limit access to the power of the position of Command-in-Chief, -a position which was not seriously countered by any counter-balancing force.

The founders were well aware of all of the evil, corruption, greed, and ambition that had been shown for ages by the monarchs of Europe and knew that they would have agents in America looking for a way to gain great advantage for their own benefit, possibly even seeking to patiently “raise a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the nation”.

That would be possible if native-birth alone allowed a citizen to become President.  That would allow a son of a wealthy European power-broker or royal to be born in America, raised and schooled in Europe, return to America after completing his higher education around the age of adulthood, and then, as a fully loyal and indoctrinated, privileged foreign elite, live and work in America for 14 years and then run for the highest office in the land.

So, the founders and framers priority was not a concern about any strict future technicalities of constitutional language impeding the nation from being able to elect the best man possible, but about preventing the election of the worst man possible.

Unfortunately, their intention, and the meaning of their words, went unacknowledged in the 2008 and 2012 elections and consequently the worst man possible actually was elected.  That man still reigns as an unconstitutional usurper of his office and a on-going serial violator of the United States Constitution.

Now we need someone who is starkly aware of the danger that we are in, and the distance that we have traveled from where we should be, and a willingness to take “drastic” action to stop our gradual capsizing and sinking into the deep of fiscal insolvency and totalitarian regulation of everything.

We need someone who will fight for constitutional government, solvent government, limited government, and citizen-respecting government.

If the best man to fit that description is Ted Cruz, it would be a crime against the aim and wishes of our founders to discard him because of a philosophical technical definition of who should be allowed to serve as President and protect the nation from foreign collusion and conspiracy.

Always bear these facts in mind if you suspect that Ted Cruz is not constitutionally qualified and you would consequently oppose him: If you want to win and survive, then you must play by the rules that your opponent plays by; -if that is “no rules” then you must bring a machine gun to a gun fight, not your bare fists even though that is the rule that you prefer to follow.

Sometimes it takes two “wrongs” to make a right.  That is the principle behind the biblical version of justice: “an eye for an eye” (as apposed to a head for an eye).  It is certainly “wrong” to put out a man’s eye” but that “wrong” is the only means to obtain “justice” for his victim, (-unless adequate financially compensation can be made).

The Lifeboat Analogy

Our nation can be compared to a lifeboat full of people hoping to make it to a safe harbor.  Their ship (the Rule of Law and fiscal solvency) has sunk and they are adrift without any compass.  One man knows how to navigate by the stars because he was the ship’s navigator.  His ability held little influence since all other’s knew how to read a compass and so they did.

The lifeboat is full of passengers and a high-ranking officer of the ship. He wants to be in charge and determine which direction they row towards, having a nearby coral island in mind.

The lowly navigator alerts everyone that if they follow the officer’s direction, then the lifeboat will be wrecked on the coral reef and they will all die very bloody deaths from its sharp edges.

He knows that if he attempts to get people to follow his advice and his orders, then the ship’s officer will inform them all that according to the very clear rules of conduct and authority, no person is allowed to seek to countermand his directions within the lifeboat because the chain of command is supreme and inviolable.

So what is the navigator to do?  Go along with the rules and share in facilitating the deaths of all those in the boat?  Or do what our forefathers did, and rebel and throw out the rule book because it is a matter of life and death?

If the passengers are informed of the rules & their supremacy over all other inclinations to assume authority, -and they believe the navigator and not the ranking officer, what choice should they make; -to obey the rules and die, or break the rules and live?

The navigator has no right to be the commander of the lifeboat, and yet he and all of the passengers have a greater right than that, and that is the right to survive.

America has a right to survive, but might not if the best man for the job is not given command of the lifeboat.  So which would you choose; survival in disobedience, or death in compliance?

What was the unwritten intention or goal of those who wrote the book in the first place?  That everyone should die by the incompetence and arrogance and misconceptions of the duly appointed authority?  Or that everyone should live, and if need be, by any means necessary?

Another consideration is the fact that the very worst person possible to be elected President is highly likely to be a natural born citizen due to the rise of alien anti-freedom ideologies that did not even exist in western civilization when the Constitution was written.

There were no Marxists, no democratic socialists, no National Socialists or Nazis, no Communists, no secular humanists, no Islamic Jihadists, and few atheists.

Now, a person could be a horrible witches-brew of more than one of those groups and still be perfectly eligible to destroy the nation by being elected President.  If that fact does not tilt one toward thinking that maybe the best and wisest approach to selecting a presidential candidate might be based on what they stand for and what they will defend to the death, then one needs a brain transfusion.

One final thought: no matter how unconstitutional, amoral, and even immoral, American society might become, if our currency and government balance sheet is sound, and especially if in the black, nothing can cause our nation’s collapse, just like a vehicle with a wide axle width, it won’t and can’t turn over.

But if fiscal insolvency is what every candidate is willing to continue to allow as the continuing status quo of the American government, then we are hopelessly doomed.  It is only a matter of when, not if.

So when considering candidates for the next President, whichever one will rein-in the unfathomable government gluttony is the one that you should support. Otherwise it is simply a matter of one side wanting to go over the cliff at 100 miles an hour while the other wants to go over the cliff at only a moderate 70 miles per hour.

by Adrien Nash  March 14, 2015  obama–nation.com

Print and share in PDF format:
Overlooked Truth about Citizenship, the Presidency, and Rafael Cruz

Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

4 Responses to The Overlooked Truth about Citizenship, the Presidency and Rafael Cruz

  1. slcraignbc says:

    What is it about you guys that think you have a calling to express your views about the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen and then embark on convoluted manifestations of obfuscations and misleading historical erroneous quotes on the subject. [AND OF COURSE YOU ARE UNABLE TO OFFER EVEN A SINGLE EXAMPLE.]

    There IS an established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship naturalization post the Ratification of the COTUS which is expressed from the effects of the Acts provisions; “Once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise”.

    That effect of the Act applied to any newly naturalized aliens throughout the United States.

    That FACT coupled with the Doctrine of Coverture regarding the status of a woman’s political character that remained unchanged until 1922 with the passage of the Cable Act, ensured that ALL children born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father was born as a U.S. natural born Citizen to U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world.

    The A2S1C5 exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision resides in the Executive Articles which, as the SCOTUS and recently acknowledged, is covered under the Separation of Powers Doctrine and therefore requires an Amendment to abridge, enlarge or otherwise modify the provision in any way.

    Notwithstanding protestations to the contrary the “declaratory born citizen provision” of the 14th Amendment applies ONLY to persons who would otherwise be born STATELESS and in that circumstance are “collectively naturalized” as noted in the Title in the U.S. Code:

    8 U.S. Code Chapter 12, Sub-chapter III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

    Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401–1409)

    Please attempt to become part of the solution instead of part of the problem with the LEGAL STATUS of U.S. natural born Citizens.
    [adridged for accuracy.]

  2. arnash says:

    You fail to comprehend the concept of collective naturalization. It only applies to groups of persons who were not born as natural citizens nor were native-born. It applies to groups like the Vietnamese boat people, the escapees from Indo-China following the fall of South Vietnam. It did not apply to native-born former slaves.
    The amendment is clear and simple in its language, and it does NOT include any hint of naturalization. It states that such persons, (as individuals) were born as citizens of the United States, with no caveats about the power of Congress to “collectively naturalize” them. Congress had no part in their being what they were by American fundamental principles of natural and common law membership and citizenship equality.
    That is why it does not state they “shall be deemed to be citizens”, or “from henceforth shall be considered…”, or “from henceforth are declared to be…”. Instead it simply says that they “ARE citizens.”
    What does that mean and what purpose did it serve? It meant that they actually were Americans and citizens by native-birth to parents who were subject to the American government.

    That is exactly what the first Congress did when it stated and mandated that foreign-born Americans were to be considered as natural born citizens. Congress did not make them so since they were made so by natural blood lineage inheritance. It merely stated for the official record what the actual truth was so confusion would be eliminated.

    Their aim failed because confusion remains, but only because the third Congress was conflicted by the citizen voters whose sons were born before they were allowed to become American citizens. They resented the hell out of the implication that only natural born citizens were allowed to be President and alien-born citizens were rejected. So Congress dropped the original language when they rewrote and expanded the uniform naturalization rule.

  3. arnash says:

    Print and share in PDF format: Overlooked Truth about Citizenship, the Presidency, and Rafael Cruz

    https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-overlooked-truth-about-citizenship-the-presidency-and-rafael-cruz/

  4. arnash says:

    “There IS an established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship naturalization post the Ratification of the COTUS which is expressed from the effects of the Acts provisions; “Once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise”.”

    That is an inherently ambiguous statement, and I suspect that you embrace the wrong one of two possibilities. The correct one is fundamental to American Liberty while the other is fundamental to the unlimited power of the STATE including at imposing tyranny. The gulf between them is huge and vastly important.
    One interpretation defends Liberty while the other opens the door to totalitarianism. It’s all in how one’s mind interprets or misconstrues your words.

    They imply the correct view by the statement “the effects of the Acts provisions”. That means that the act was one thing while the effect was another, and was not an element of the act itself. That is true, and is natural because the children of the head of the family are his reflection and replication in society and country, making them what he is nationality-wise due to being blood of his blood. They are naturally new national members also because they are what he is by natural principle. NOT by congressional authority.

    If one presumes that the effect of a naturalized foreigner becoming an American only impacts his children by the will, choice, fiat, and declaration of Congress then one is committing mutiny against the Law of natural belonging and imposing the Law of Artificial Authority in its place, with Congress playing the role of supreme decider. In other words, playing the role of God.

    That view has a significant collateral effect in regard to children of married American couples because their children are also mentioned in the naturalization acts.
    So that leads to having to parse the truth from the uncategorized statements of the acts.

    Does the statement regarding the children of foreigners and the children of Americans fall into the category of delegated power which Congress can decide? If so, then we live under a supreme Congress and not a limited-powers Congress.
    Alternatively, do the statements regarding them merely illuminate the natural effect of the status of the parents on their children, not via the determination of congressional authority, but by natural law?

    Is the determination of the children’s status due to the principle of Nature or due to the legal power and choice of men? The answer has a rudder effect; it turns the entire huge Ship of State with just a little adjustment.

    Was Congress given the authority to declare that which is already true and to make it true not because it is true but because Congress says so? If so, then Congress would be supreme over Truth itself!
    Can Congress declare that by its authority alone all U.S. citizens are U.S. citizens? Or are natural citizens naturally citizens without regard to Congress which only has a say in the naturalization of foreigners?

    The children of naturalized foreigners are like the tip of a great iceberg, while the children of American citizens are like the unseen mass beneath the surface. They were the 98% of births and so what is true of them reveals what is also true of the 2%.

    If all American children of all married American couples were Americans by birth to Americans and not Americans by British common law custom or congressional choice, then they were all natural citizens by natural law and not human law.

    If they were all automatically U.S. citizens by natural law then their mention in the uniform rule was merely a statement of natural fact made for their protection from ignorant port authorities and presidential election commission officers who might stupidly view them as foreigners or naturalized citizens.

    Congress felt the obligation to insert such a clarifying statement on their behalf because none existed in the Constitution itself. So Congress made it manifestly clear that all children (understood to mean all sons) of all American citizens were eligible to serve as President since they in fact were also natural born citizens and birth place was unrelated to that status by birth & inheritance.

    That status was via their blood connection to citizen parents, as was also the US citizen status of the newly naturalized immigrant. That status was NOT dependent on the authority of Congress but was a natural effect of a blood relationship. If the parents are citizens when their child is born, then their child was born as a natural citizen.
    If the immigrant parents became citizens then their children became what the parents had become by the same principle; one family–one nationality, one allegiance, one national identity and subjection. The children, by natural law, are replicas of their parents by their inherited nature, including their political nature.

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: