Citizenship Delusions and Deceptions
April 11, 2015 3 Comments
” The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to *bestow* citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply.”
That characterization is unfounded. It cannot be claimed that citizenship was “bestowed” by the language of the statute. It describes provisional citizenship which is not permanent citizenship, and thus is not being “taken away” by failure to comply. That which is not really owned outright cannot be taken away from the owner, anymore than a repossessed car is taken away from the actual owner.
Citizenship which is owned by the citizen cannot be taken away by government unless one’s actions are judged as being evidence of self-expatriation with intent.
“and since a US citizen at birth is a ‘natural-born citizen’,” …and there we have the heart of the treasonous fantasy of false natural citizenship.
Just make a BIG LIE statement supported by nothing in United States law, or principles, and the ignorant and gullible will swallow it down if laced with the sugar of lawyerly authority.
That dreamland fantasy statement is the mount Everest that you have NOT climbed. You have not and cannot attach any validity to such a mentally defective leap of presumption.
“the court ruled that citizenship granted statutorily could be taken away as such” That is irrelevant since it has been superseded by the post-Afroim v Rush rulings that government has no authority to take back that which it no longer owns. Citizenship once given becomes equal citizenship, natural citizenship as a fundamental American fiction. The 14th Amendment was seen to require equal treatment of all citizens.
“those born abroad to US citizens and acquiring citizenship in that manner “shall be considered as natural born citizens” ie THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. Ergo, Ted Cruz is a natural-born US citizen.”
Ergo nothing! You must have failed Logic 101. “born to US citizens” means born to US citizenS. Citizens is plural because no one is born to only one parent. The right of natural citizenship is something that only parents of the same nationality can pass on. One alone cannot and so naturalization statutes are needed. No statutes are needed for children of American couples because their children born abroad cannot be anything other than American by nature.
Try this on: Ergo, Ted Cruz is a statutory citizen. and… The do NOT have the same rights because some are not eligible to be President even though they are citizens because they are not *natural* citizens by birth.
You reveal your true Luciferian nature when you attempt to glibly conflate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” as if they are synonymous just because the US legal system has followed a bastardized A.G. citizenship policy for over a century. The policy does NOT conform with the Wong opinion, and no sane person can find a way to make it conform.
Points to grasp: 1. Not all born in the US are born of parents or fathers fully subject to US jurisdiction, and thus are not born as US citizens if born here.
2. Not all born fully subject are actual natural citizens because they are naturally aliens like their parents. That is what natural means. All talk about citizenship is just that… NOT talk about NATURAL citizenship.
So what qualifies one to be president? First he has to be a natural born citizen.
John Bingham who was a Republican congressman from 1850 to 1900.
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, -that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.
But, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.
Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him. But while this is admitted, can you declare by congressional enactment as to citizens of the United States within the States that there shall be no discrimination among them of civil rights?”
“Canada is not in the jurisdiction of the United States. Nor has it ever been.”
” I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, [nc – prior to the 14th Amendment]”
He misspoke. He should have referred to the law that had been recently passed and from which he then quoted, which was the law that included the section that came to be known as the Civil Rights Act of 1866. ”
not owing allegiance to any foreign power”
” Citizenship is his birthright, and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.”
And who exactly was the “him” he referred to? It was all who were born subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ State and national authorities. That means the children (without regard to place of birth) of members of the society in the United States who constitute the citizenry of the nation.
What everyone fails to comprehend is the full meaning of subjection to jurisdiction. I’ve written vast amounts about it but it doesn’t follow that it has been read and thereby learned, so I’ll reiterate a bit.
[please read: BEARING ARMS, FULL FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE at obama–nation.com
No child is born in subjection to any government. They are born dependent on their parents who ARE subject to their government. The male children become fully subject like their father upon reaching adulthood. Then they are subject to their natural duty to protect their family, town, county, state and country. They then CAN BE DRAFTED AND SENT TO WAR. THAT is the full subjection under which a child, if born, is deemed to be a U.S. citizen.
Now, and for a century or more, that subjection includes immigrant men who are still subjects or citizens of a foreign nation. They not only must register with Selective Service, (if under 25) they can and have been drafted in all the wars of the last century and sent to their deaths in battle. If they refuse then they have been convicted and sent to a federal penitentiary. THAT is full subjection.
Subjection is passed, or was passed, from father to son. Only males were full citizens because only they bore the full responsibility for the defense and survival of the nation and its people. That was the unwritten justification for them having civic rights that women did not have. Now women have those rights but they are, and will always be, exempt from the responsibility of males. It is unequal citizenship terms but it is the way of nature, including human nature.
So, the unnoticed center of truth regarding birth in the US under subjection to no other foreign power is not the issue of birth in the US but birth to one who was fully subject at one’s birth, because that subjection once implied full citizenship, and that citizenship came with an inviolable unalienable natural birthright, and it was the right by blood lineage to the same nationality status of the parents that gave one life.
“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 effect of the status of the parents via the determination of natural law and not congressional authority?
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 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 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 (sons implied) 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.
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 inherited nature, including political nature.
by Adrien R. Nash April 2015