Natural Citizenship & The Nationality Formula

A.I.S. + X = NNM;  NNM = NBC

That is the formula that makes you a natural born American citizen who is potentially eligible to be President.

It begins with what came before you did, namely; your parents. What were they when you were born? Why ask? Because of one very profound word in the presidential eligibility clause; the word “natural”.

Article II, Sec. I of the Constitution states that “No person, except a natural born citizen,… shall be eligible to the office of the President;…”

You are what you are made to be, and that is the result of three different forces: 1. those who produced you; 2. the influences of chance, society, and education; 3. what the powers-that-be define you to be, in particular the government via its policies, laws, and judicial opinions.

Numbers two and three are human influences. Number one is a natural influence. It is the result of the natural element of life, -as in your parents life and the collateral things that accompany it, -chief of which are certain unalienable rights, one of which is the natural right of membership & belonging to those who gave you life, as well as to the larger group of which your progenitors are members, -members either naturally or by the human influence of law.

Either way, you are, through them, born as a natural member of their group if they are both of the same group. If the group is the “citizenship” group, then you are a natural member of that group, making you a natural citizen by birth to citizens.

If your parents are not official members of the citizen group, but instead were aliens when you were born, then you are not a natural member of the citizen group because you were not born to it, -even if you are granted citizenship from birth by the allowance of law.

So “N” (for “natural”) is very significant. “NNM” stands for “Natural National Member”. All natural national members are what is known in government terminology as “natural born citizens” or NBC, thus NNM = NBC.

“A.I.S.” stands for three things which are intimately connected: “Ancestry, Identity, and Status”. One’s blood lineage or ancestry determines one’s Identity in life at birth. If it is royal, then you also are royal. Royalty would be a fundamental element of your “Identity”. That identity determines your “Status” in life.

In the matter of citizenship, your parentage or ancestry determines your national identity (such as American) and that identity determines your nationality status, -citizen or non-citizen.

But who and what you are is determined by more than just what you inherit from your parents. Your upbringing, experience, education, and acculturation determine the nature of your larger personal identity. Those elements are lumped together under the designation of “X”, which stands for eXperience.

When your “X” factor is shaped in the nation of your parents’ nationality, then you are born as a “natural national member” or NNM, hence the formula: A.I.S. + X = NNM.

That is what determines who and what you are. But what determines what your children are? If they are raised within your country then they also are NNMs and NBCs, but if they are born and raised abroad then something is different about them, and it is the fact that the “X” factor is absent since their acculturation is into a foreign society.

As a result of lacking the “X” factor in their own lives, although their parentage contains it, the formula is incomplete and they are not fully NNMs or natural national members since they’ve never set foot onto the soil of the nation that is supposedly their homeland.

But that is okay since by their political inheritance, they are nevertheless still defined by their A.I.S. They can emigrate to their national home nation at any time but they can’t be President until they have lived there for 14 years and acquired their own “X” factor.

But if they have children of their own in their foreign homeland, without having ever lived in the United States, and raise them there and never in the United States, then what do their children inherit? They inherit the same A.I.S. of their grandfather but they totally lack the American “X” factor from their foreign-born parents.

Without the parents’ “X” factor, the formula is incomplete at their birth because one’s political inheritance is lacking an essential element of national character, and that is national acculturation.

Without it one cannot receive from their parents the full and complete package of national inheritance, but instead receive the “X” factor of a foreign nation. Like the genes of dissimilar species, they cannot combine and produce a natural off-spring of either parents’ species, -or their political nature, i.e., nationality.

The “genes” of separate nations cannot be combined and produce a natural citizen. Instead they produce a conflicted, dual-citizen with dual heritage, national ancestry, devotion, and loyalty; aka allegiance.

That is the reason why the British made an exclusion from their statute which declared that foreign-born children of British fathers be fully recognized as “natural-born subjects” like their fathers. The British subjects’ children were allowed that privilege but their foreign-born and raised grandchildren were not if their father had never lived in Great Britain.

Those of that second generation, having been born and raised abroad, were not British in any realistic way since they were raised by a foreign-born and raised father. Hence they were deemed to not be British subjects.

The congressional authors of the first Uniform Rule of Naturalization (1790) adopted that element of British nationality law almost verbatim which reads almost verbatim: “-and the children of citizens of the United States that are born abroad, beyond Sea, shall be considered as natural born citizens, Provided that the Right of citizenship shall not descend to any whose father shall never have lived in the United States.”

Natural law membership ends with such an unnatural situation because a new and different national membership was formed, and it is recognized by both nations as 100% compliant with the law of reason and “the law of nations”.

With that history illuminated, let’s now examine the consequence of relating the Constitution’s presidential eligibility prohibition to the naturalization act’s prohibition. And let’s do so with a comparison between an American situation and a hypothetical British royal situation.

Another analogy for your enlightenment! To set the stage, let’s look at the complete first half of the eligibility clause (skipping age and residency):

“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President;…”

That meant that not only did the founders and framer allow themselves to serve as President, but they also allowed their American naturalized (but foreign-born) war compatriots to serve as well, if electable and elected. Now let’s see how that would translate in a hypothetical British royal situation.

“No royal son, except an England-born royal son, or a foreign-born royal son of Great Britain at the time of this Parliamentary decree, shall be eligible to ascend to the Throne of Great Britain.” -And then a short time later, Parliament passes a nationality statute which states: “and the children of royals born abroad, beyond the Sea, shall be considered to be England-born royals, i.e., born in England.”

Let’s parse the facts of similarity and dissimilarity. In the American eligibility clause, the citizens who were not natural born citizens were either born of foreign immigrants or were born of & as foreigners outside of America. In the British ascension clause, the royals born outside of England after the decree was passed would not be eligible to the throne if they were Irish royals or Scottish royals.

But that would not be completely clear because many would concluded that “England-born” meant “Britain born” (with Ireland and Scotland then being part of the British United Kingdom), and that “foreign-born” was not intended to mean or include Ireland and Scotland. That view could be asserted only until the later decree was passed since it made it quite clear that “England-born” meant born in England.

Well there would be a huge uproar in Ireland and Scotland over such a wording since it would destroy the view that Scottish and Irish royalty were also eligible. So to smooth things over, Parliament would alter the wording when it next revised the statute, by excluding the “born in England” wording. Then everyone could have peace with the assumption that England-born included all royals even though it in fact did not when it was written.

That is what happened in America when Congress mandated in 1790 that American citizens born abroad are to be considered (by all presidential election commissions) as being natural born citizens (implying nothing other than presidential eligibility since those words have no other application).

So what could be a problem with stating such a real-world natural fact and providing clarification of their eligibility? Were not American men endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to pass their national membership on to their heirs, -their sons and daughters?

If so, then that “unalienable” RIGHT does not magically become “alienable” simply because of crossing artificial, invisible, man-made, conquest-determined national boundaries.

Could otherwise natural American citizens somehow become unnatural just because of where they exited the womb? Did such an insignificant factor make them aliens? Did crossing national boundaries also destroy one’s belonging to one’s own family, and not just one’s nation?

The Right of Descent is related only to blood relationship, not “soil relationship”. So why did Congress five years later drop that mandate to protect the American identity and the presidential eligibility right of foreign-born American children by dropping the words “natural born” and leaving only “citizen of the United States”?

Because annually foreign-born Americans numbered in the single digits while the sons of unnaturalized immigrants numbered in the tens of thousands. One side had a considerable lobby while the other had none. And besides, removing those words did not alter the meaning of the constitutional term “natural born citizen”, but it did allow the native-born of immigrants (before being “naturalized”) to be able to aspire to the greatest office in the world, that of the leader of the greatest free country in the world in that age. A win-win situation made possible by the removal of clarity and its replacement with ambiguity.

No one can complain about what a rule means if no one is sure what it really means. And thus peace is achieved, -at least until the election of Barack Obama and the candidacy of John McCain. He was born beyond Sea and Obama was born of an alien non-immigrant father. Worlds colliding!! Clouds of confusion rising! Everything is spinning! Where’s the truth so we can grab on to it?

So the controversy was not avoided altogether, -only postponed until over two hundred years later. Fortunately, myself and others have rediscovered the truth and shared it for those who actually care to know.

And speaking of the truth, many people seek it because they are driven by curiosity. They respect the truth and want to know it, but unfortunately, they fall into two very different groups.

One group is driven primarily by curiosity while the other is driven by a desire to know the real truth, whatever it is. The curiosity group eventually finds “the truth” and their curiosity is satisfied.

They are then satisfied with the answer. They are contented, secure, and confident in their new knowledge and feel they are now on the side of “the truth”. But if new information appears which challenges their settled understanding or “knowledge” of the facts, it is not readily accepted because it upsets the apple cart of their secure and embraced canon of truth.

No matter how convincing or clear the new information may be, it cannot penetrate the barrier-shell of their canonized doctrine. How can “the truth” not be the Truth.

What they are really defending is their own embrace and investment in and certification of what seemed like the unquestionable truth to them. Their personal ego is tied to their authoritative promulgation of their truth, and that is why it is so well defended. Like bulldogs, they can’t let go of it. Their response to alternative views is like that of a mule, or goat; -stubborn. And least we forget the porcine family; pig-headed.

As Samuel Clemens wrote: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled”. And he knew a lot about fools. And as Carl Sagan echoed in regard to the power of the big bamboozle; it is almost impossible to convince people that they have been bamboozled.

And so that is the situation regarding “the truth” about the true meaning of “natural born citizen”. Open minds are hard to come by. Seekers of only the truth, and not just what looks like it, are rare because they are not driven by the itch of curiosity which “the truth” can scratch and relieve, but are driven by a deep desire to remove all error, deception, presumption, half-truths, contaminated or partial truth, sophistical “truth” and logically flawed “truth” no matter how desirable it may seem.

They may cry-out in the wilderness like prophets, but like prophets, few will listen or take heed. They will instead follow the path seen in the history of the Sunni and Shia Muslims.

One might expect that with the passage of time, the differences between them would be settled by arriving at an understanding that would erase the error of either or both sides and shine the light of truth on the matters that divide them.

But after 14 centuries, they are as divided and antagonistic as ever. Time does not produce light or truth for those unwilling to accept a challenge to their fundamental beliefs.

And the issue of the presidency is a fundamental issue because it is a constitutional issue, and the good patriot wants to be right by the Constitution, -faithful and true.

So anything that is contrary to their understanding of what that constitutes is rejected because it introduces uncertainty, -uncertainty about themselves and their capacity to discern the truth from error. And after all, who wants to exchange self-satisfied certainty about yourself in exchange for a loss of trust in yourself and your discernment?

Plus there’s the natural embarrassment at having to walk-back all of the confident preaching of one’s embraced doctrine to others. That can’t be pleasant. Egg on one’s face. One’s imperial invisible clothes being seen to be unreal and the wearer naked, -that can’t be allowed.

Their royal self must be protected or else smug self-satisfaction will be replaced by shame. Oh for shame, we can’t allow that. And so error is forever perpetuated, generation after generation.

Such is life in The Matrix of false illusion and false beliefs

by Adrien R. Nash April 2015 obama–

On Bearing Arms & Bearing Natural Born Children

To embrace as sacred the American heresy that native-birth is an essential element of natural national belonging (in addition to family belonging), one must deny their own sovereignty by birth as an American citizen and surrender all ultimate authority to the GOVERNMENT.

To believe that your son or daughter who was born beyond US borders is an alien, -a foreigner by nature as per the authority of the Government in declaring that to be so, then you have to first be a fool, and second a slave of the Government and not its master, because otherwise the slave could tell his master that the master does not belong in his own castle since he was born outside of it. (!)

A fundamental organic law of American citizenship is the natural right of national inclusion by descent. Inclusion means membership, and membership means citizenship. You belong to the nation of your citizenship as a member born into membership by parents who were members when you were born.

To argue for the nativists’ dogma that you are not a natural member of your parents’ nation without native-birth is to claim that your unalienable right to bear children anywhere on planet Earth, or elsewhere, is as unreal as your unalienable right to bear arms in America.

The right of bearing arms is a fundamental right of individual liberty, but hardly as major a right as the right of bearing children who are Americans also, naturally, (-not by permission or grant of Big Brother Government, -i.e., by statutory allowance which bars for life any such supposed alien-born children from ever being eligible to serve as President).

Is the right to bear arms given by government or is it not? If not, then neither is the right of American children to be children equal to all other natural children born of American parents.
To support the native-birth requirement doctrine requires supporting unequal citizenship and embracing citizenship superiority that’s not supported by fundamental American values.

“I am superior citizenship-wise to my twin brother who went an’ got himself born before our mother could get through heavy border traffic and into an American hospital. Clearly I am superior to my foreign-born alien twin brother. I have a natural right to be President and he has no such right.
I believe that is true and is the way things ought to be. And more, -is the way our wise, patriotic and nationalistic forefathers intended. After all, the mother and father that raised us both are irrelevant to what we grew-up to be. Our character was formed solely due to the borders within which we entered the world. Makes perfect sense, right?”

Natural national membership (natural citizenship) exists by the untouchable, inviolable natural right that children belong to their parents and to whatever group their parents belong to. By that right, they are eligible to be President.
What sane, thoughtful American couple would ever cede to the limited government established by their forefathers any right to limit the right of their children to belong to their own nation? Where in the Constitution is any such power delegated to the national legislature?

No such power exists. The authority of Congress is constitutionally limited to making the naturalization requirements of the State governments uniform by passing a nation-wide uniform rule for the naturalization of foreign men in State courts of record.

That is correct. Under the articles of the Constitution, the States remained sovereign when it came to both immigration and naturalization of their immigrants, but instead of taking an oath of allegiance to the State of their migration and residence, they would take an oath of Renunciation of their subjection to any foreign power, and swear Allegiance to the Constitution and, in effect, the principles and values of our fundamental American documents and the State & Federal Laws that spring from them.

here is a 6-page 2-column printable PDF version: The Nationality Formula & Natural Citizenship


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”.

8 Responses to Natural Citizenship & The Nationality Formula

  1. davidfarrar says:

    I can find no better example of this definition than the one offered by John Bingham in the 1866 Civil Rights Act: ‘A person born not subject to a foreign power.’ I would further add, at the risk of being redundant: ‘A person born not subject to a foreign power, with one allegiance, and only one allegiance, and that allegiance is to support and abide by the US Constitution.’

    • arnash says:

      That is NOT a definition. It is a mere descriptive characterization. It defines only one thing. There is far more to citizenship, especially natural citizenship, than not being subject to a foreign power.

      • davidfarrar says:

        “If the reason for barring naturalized U.S. citizens from the presidency were to disqualify those with previous allegiances to foreign sovereignties, wouldn’t that concern reasonably be the matrix of the natural born citizen clause?”

        by Kuligowski

      • arnash says:

        That is absolutely and incontestably the case. But it does not end there because it extended to children born to them while they were still foreigners. It is not a delicate surgery to separate citizens by factors over which they had no control, namely the nationality of the parents to which one was born, -which nationality was subsequently changed but without changing the life-long consequence for their children vis a vis the presidency.
        If all born citizens were eligible then that would be a clean surgical separation between them and the naturalized citizens and their foreign-nationality children born abroad. But the blunt knife of the eligibility exclusion also chops-off all of those who were born the day before their father naturalized while allowing their late-birth twin brother born the next day after naturalization to be President.

        That was a very messy cleaving between classes of closely related American sons and for that reason the words “natural born” were removed from the first Uniform Rule of Naturalization. It had few supporters and many opponents. It was better to leave the issue undefined so there would be no great disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of American sons who were common law citizens from birth but not natural citizens by birth.

    • arnash says:

      I have not read either of the works you linked to. I’ve opened the first one by greschak and it looks impressive and almost overly documented. Within the first several paragraphs I was surprised that finally someone else has also realized what I did a few years ago, which I restated again in my recent exposition on how a hyphen and an underline change everything.

      “I have considered the implications of the fact that Jay wrote (in his letter to Washington) “natural born Citizen” with no hyphen and the word born underlined as shown here:”

      Unfortunately, he utterly failed to comprehend the meaning of “natural”. He made the intellectual error of approaching the meaning of nbc from a strictly intellectual angle, relying on the thoughts of legal-minded men who were not mentally oriented toward a perspective on life that was in tune with natural law.
      That is normal for members of the elite academic, legal, and political classes since they view everything in terms of societal structures and not natural relationships.

      In nature, no structures exist; only natural relationships and natural feelings. He missed that truth all together when he adopted a view of “natural” that was in fact not very natural in nature. He left Nature out of natural! That is what led him to an incorrect conclusion regarding the insignificant factor of place of exit from the womb.

      Soil, borders, laws, orders, judgements, opinions and all such artificial determinants are OUTSIDE of the natural realm and all they can do that’s right is acknowledge the supremacy of natural relationship as the governing law within the confines of civilization.

      “Factors employed (explicitly or implicitly) in the United States Constitution to gauge the degree to which one belongs to the United States:”
      Whenever one uses the word “implicitly” in regard to what is explicitly written in the Constitution, red flags should be raised in one’s mind because it implicitly implies that they were willing to resort to confidently employing their own presumptuous imagination and not limiting themselves solely to the text and its meaning in common language terms. That is the error he got derailed into when he pontificated that native-birth is anywhere to be found or implied in the Constitution.

      His exercise of presumptuous thinking is also seen in his use of a term that he believes is intended by the framers but not actually used, and so he uses it for them without their authorization nor with any basis for doing so, and that term is “a natural born Citizen of the United States “.

      As I’ve illuminated over and over, no such term was used nor was it implied. They wrote exactly what was the view of all of the men of the 13 independent, autonomous, sovereign nations of America, -all of whom were natural born citizens of their home nation, e.g. Virginia, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, etc.

      The modern mind is not educated to understand that in the eligibility clause they first and foremost wrote about themselves and not about some future citizen of a future nation that may or may not have ever come into being since there was wide-spread opposition to the surrender of sovereignty to a new national government to replace the overthrown tyrannical British government.

      It’s pathetic that such an erudite mind is representative of almost all intelligent patriots who have no concept of the extent of their natural rights even as he writes about “rights, privileges and immunities”.

      What right is as chief as all the others? The RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP BY DESCENT. It is a natural right, a blood right, a birthright, an everlasting, inviolable and unalienable right of all American parents and their flesh & blood off-spring. Yet he has no idea of that fact because none of us were ever taught to know or even conceive of it.
      It took a lot of deep thought to finally come to the certainty of the truth illuminated by Dr. David Ramsay regarding a simple natural right that too many are ignorant of. That ignorance results from legal thinking and not natural thinking. What natural born citizen means is understood by understanding the everlasting truth of two simple words: natural belonging. We all enter the world naturally belonging to those who produced us and birthed us.
      They were not some unrelated guardians who grew us in a machine and had only an objective, detached connection to us, and whose national membership was not naturally, organically passed on to us as our natural inheritance through our natural relationship as those who would one day replace them as young adults producing the next generation of our family and citizens of our nation.

      They were the source of our life and existence and our continuing survival, and yet the legal-minded childless philosophers would separate the child from both the mother and the father and declare their beloved miracle to be an alien! How insane is that??? An alien simply because of where the baby left the womb? What is natural about such a designation?? NOTHING! It is pure legalistic nonsense. Borders cannot and do not trump the Laws of Nature, i.e., -the Law of Natural Belonging.

      Parents cannot be separated from their child, and their child cannot be singled out as a foreign being that has no right to belong to the nation and people of those who gave it its life. The belief, the faith, that native-birth produces natural citizenship is one of the greatest absurdities ever to enter the human mind.

      • davidfarrar says:

        I agree. To be an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, one must be born, both of blood (of two citizen parents) and of dirt (within our territorial jurisdiction).

        So what would you consider a Jewish child, born of two US Jewish citizen-parents within the jurisdiction, if said child was also recognized by the States of Israel as a natural born Israeli?

        Could such a child pass muster as a Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen?

  2. arnash says:

    I agree. To be an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen, one must be born, both of blood (of two citizen parents) and of dirt (within our territorial jurisdiction).

    [You claim that you agree and then you state the very OPPOSITE of that to which you agree!! Where was your mind when making such a claim? Everything that I’ve pointed out reveals your view to be treasonous to fundamental U.S. Citizen sovereignty.
    You are a modern version of a damn loyalist who adheres to the supremacy of bastardized British common law which unnaturally assigned birth place as a essential criterion for nationality when under the law of nature it has no significance WHATSOEVER!!!

    When the hell will you drop your subservience to the plutocratic monarchical authority of government and embrace your natural rights and the fundamental organic law of the United States?]

    So what would you consider a Jewish child, born of two US Jewish citizen-parents within the jurisdiction, if said child was also recognized by the States of Israel as a natural born Israeli?

    Could such a child pass muster as a Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen?

    You confusion is based on not discerning the difference between natural membership in a nation and natural membership in a race.
    Israel is a race-based nation, so it you are Jewish, then you are, as also with the Greeks, deemed to be considered as a natural member of the nation, and such because of parentage alone, regardless of place of birth.
    Place of birth is totally irrelevant to natural membership, whether in a race or a nation. So such children are natural citizens of the United States via citizen parents, and also natural members of the Jewish ethnic group, and as such are in possession of a birthright to Israeli citizenship.

    Understand that membership in the Jewish “group” is purely natural while membership in the American group is by natural principle, -the principle seen in the Jewish membership; i.e., membership by blood lineage. Just as Jews produce new Jews, so American citizens produce new American citizens by the same principle but not by the same means, which is not one of racial distinction but national membership.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: