Citizenship Types and the Amazing Milk Analogy

One important fact that I’ve learned over the five years that I’ve been researching and contemplating the fundamental facts about national membership and citizenship is that anytime you come across someone pontificating about “U.S. citizenship” and the presidency, they are very likely doing so from an erroneous perspective which fails to take into account the actual situation that existed when the Constitution was drafted.

What they fail to acknowledge due to the ignorance that has blinded most Americans for over a century is two supremely important facts, which are:
1.  Citizenship existed before the Constitution was written.  Everyone who was not a foreigner was a citizen, and in the cases of many, like John Adams, all of their ancestors were Americans back to the first settlements.  Of course they were all British subjects and “British” was both their nationality and identity as part of the expanding empire.

The Revolution ended that relationship and left behind their single actual identity, which was “American”.  But for 90%+ of the population their core identity was that rooted in the colony of their birth and up-bringing.  With the Declaration of Independence, it became a unique sovereign nation among 13, and it was to that nation that they owed their primary allegiance.

That translated to each of them thinking of themselves as an organic member of their own State by ancestral roots, and a member of a new constitutional nation by consent of their State to the provisions of union laid-out in the Constitution.  Their national membership was an extension of their primary citizenship, which was State citizenship.

2.  While the States, under the Constitution, retained their sovereign authority over who among them they would allow to become new citizens via naturalization (along with their sovereignty over their coastal borders and immigration) the new Congress was not bound by the criteria that the States might adopt in deciding the conditions that had to be met before allowing naturalization via the Oath of Renunciation & Allegiance.

In fact, the Congress was authorized by the Constitution to write a new rule for all of the States to adopt which would make all of their naturalization criteria uniform across all the States.  It said “Congress shall have the power… -to write an uniform rule of naturalization;…”

That was the full extent of authority given to the new national legislative body over the matter of citizenship and nationality.  Nothing else.

So you had the new rule written by Congress, and the old rules followed by the individual States prior to the new rule being written (between 1776 and 1790).

A gigantic mistake that some make is in assuming that Congress was given some sort of universal, omnipotent authority over all citizenship of all Americans and foreigners, when in fact it was not given any authority at all except to author a uniform rule for the States to adopt in their naturalization process to make their foreign immigrants into equal fellow citizens.

That overly-simple situation left an extremely important situation concerning certain children unaddressed.  It was the matter of whether or not the new national government should, could, and would impute American citizenship to children of foreigners if they happened to be born within the States before their father became (or was allowed to become) an American citizen with allegiance henceforth not only to the laws of his State of residence, but also to the laws of the national government, along with, first and foremost, the Constitution of the United States.

Congress, being independent from the governments of the States, choose to not recognize that which most (or perhaps all) of the States recognized, and that was the allowance of citizenship for their native-born (as always was the common law tradition under British rule).

The Congress took a different stance from the States, and that fact is overlooked by almost everyone, including judges and Supreme Court justices who looked only at the traditions of the States and not at the independent choice of the national government from its very beginning.

Congress rejected the unnatural British tradition of native-birth-determined national membership because it had a despicable side-effect of producing something completely unacceptable, and that was dual allegiance, dual national military duty, and dual national membership.  It was a form of nationality bigamy, -like having two husbands, two families, or two masters.

Can anyone looking at the choices facing them logically pontificate that the men of Congress chose to follow the rejected pattern of Britain when it also came with the tradition and doctrine of “perpetual allegiance” for life, -with no right of expatriation ever?

And let’s not overlook the possibly mandatory obedience to and support of the Anglican Church commanded by it chief officer, the King of Great Britain.  Yes, that system was anathema to the freedom-defending founding fathers who established the new nation on the principles of Natural Rights, -not “the Divine Right of Kings”.

So there you have it; a schism between the nationality principle of the national government and the permissive State citizenship laws of the States.  That divide was not reconciled until 1898 when the Supreme Court handed down a landmark opinion in the U.S. v Wong Kim Ark case.

It ended one ambiguity and created in its place another one which has become just as hugely important, and that is regarding the citizenship status of those born within U.S. borders to people who are not legal members of American society, people who are totally foreign and still subject to their own government, still owing it their full allegiance because they have never renounced their membership in their foreign society and obedience to their government.  What in the world would logically and legally make the children of such persons “Americans”?  Well, the answer is “nothing”.

That is not the official view of the federal government, and has not been its view since 1898, but its view is not based on the 14th Amendment, nor on the Supreme Court Wong case which construed the meaning of the amendment.  It is based instead solely on the view of the Attorney General at the time of that opinion, -one John Griggs.

His presumptuous and erroneously expanded view has never been challenged or revisited or overturned, but instead has become institutionalized as the faux “law of the land” that everyone just assumes must be legitimate, when it is no more legitimate than calling Native Americans “Indians” as if they are natives of India.  That error is also universally institutionalized by the U.S. Government.

So we have a situation in which U.S. citizenship is wrapped in ambiguity and erroneous views, so to clarify the situation, a good analogy is called for.

The Great Cow Milk Analogy

Milk has a lot in common with the subject and nature of citizenship.  One should not speak about “citizenship” nor “milk” without added qualifiers.  When discussing presidential eligibility and citizenship, first one must make clear what era’s frame of reference they are speaking of, and second, which sovereignty they are speaking of, State or National?  Milk comes with similar variations.  Let’s looks at the various analogous situations:

1.  Those native-born of citizens who were born of citizens are like raw whole milk.
2. Those native-born of citizens who were born of foreigners are like raw low-fat milk.
3.  Those native-born of unnaturalized legal immigrants are like homogenized and pasteurized non-fat milk.

4.  Those born abroad of citizens who were born of citizens are like raw whole homogenized milk. [they need “processing” to make their existence known to the government, along with proof of parentage]

5.  Those born abroad of citizens who were born of foreigners are like homogenized low-fat milk.
6.  Those born abroad of naturalized foreigners are like homogenized and pasteurized non-fat milk.

7.  Those born abroad of a third-generation American parent and a foreign parent are like homogenized whole milk combined half-&-half with processed soy milk.

8.  Those born abroad of a second-generation American parent (the parent is the child of a naturalized citizen) and a foreign parent are like low-fat homogenized milk combined half-&-half with processed soy milk.

9.  Those born abroad of a first-generation American parent and a foreign parent are like homogenized & pasteurized non-fat milk combined half-&-half with processed soy milk.

10.  Those native-born of a second-generation American parent and a foreign immigrant parent are like raw low-fat milk combined half-&-half with processed soy milk.

11.  Those born abroad to an American mother and a deceased, unknown, or stateless father who is no longer a citizen of any nation is like homogenized low-fat milk.  The only nationality passed down is that of the American mother so her child is defined based on her nationality status alone.

12.  Those native-born of illegal immigrants and temporary foreign guests are like chocolate soy milk.  Just as soy milk is not cow milk, so their presumed citizenship is not real citizenship but exists only in the delusional doctrine of the consensus-thinking hive-mind legal establishment, -not in actual U.S. law.

Since she is an American citizen, her child would technically be born as a natural citizen also regardless of where it was born or who its father was because neither of those factors figure into the natural nationality of the child.  Being a natural citizen by birth means one is a natural born citizen, aka: a born natural citizen.

The fat of whole milk is akin to the organic connection one has to their ancestral roots.
The processing of homogenization and pasteurization are akin to consular processing needed to assure the U.S. government that one’s foreign-born child is in fact their own biological child and not an adopted, bought, or kidnapped child.  It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any government authority to “confer” or grant citizenship to the foreign-born.

The situation with foreign birth is very simple if both parents are of the same nationality: if the parents are Americans then so are their children automatically and not by any misconstruence of the word “naturalized”.

If the parents are foreigners then their children have no connection to America.  The complication comes when one is American and the other is foreign.  Then the child, not being a natural member of either nation because it is an unnatural hybrid (politically speaking) is neither by any natural means a U.S. citizen nor born with a foreign-parent’s nationality but is instead allowed membership by national law as a gift, -not as a right.

Historically, it was as a right in the nation of the father because (before the era of Women’s rights) nationality was passed from the head of the family to the body of the family, including the wife.  That was known as patrilineal descent, or birthright, or in the wife’s case; coverture or derivation, but that era is gone in most modern nations.  But many nations are not modern and still recognize the father as the source of a child’s natural nationality.

One needs to always bear in mind the difference between natural nationality and legal nationality.  They are from opposite realms; one is the natural realm while the other is the contrived, artificial legal realm of man’s laws, -not the natural membership and belonging into which the off-spring of all species are born.

National membership by the gift of government based on the criterion of native-birth is not a natural thing but is completely artificial and changeable, just as are nation boundaries.

Natural national membership is not changeable by laws because human laws cannot trump nor erase the Law of Nature, and it includes the law of natural membership.  It is universal, foundational, perennial, unalienable, and totally natural membership.  Government bows to it as the supreme and unquestionable pattern of life.

All other forms of national membership, including those with hybrid origins, are man-made contrivances which are impermanent, changeable, and artificially determined gifts of the natural citizens of the nation.  The supposed United States citizenship of the inhabitants of Guam and Puerto Rico are stark examples of such “citizenship”.

Neither island’s citizens are members of the union of the states because neither island is a state.  So, as with Hawaii and its natural born Hawaiians, there are natural born Guamians and natural born Puerto Ricans, but neither are natural born citizens of any State of the nation and are thus ineligible to serve as President.

Is the legal establishment aware of such obvious logical facts?  Not really, and that is because of the ingrained, multi-generational error that equates native-birth with citizenship, and native-birth citizenship with natural citizenship.

It does not follow that just because 96%+ of native-born persons are natural born citizens born of citizen parents that the factor of native-birth is what makes them natural citizens by birth.  It definitely is NOT!  It is their natural citizenship by birth (not mere legal citizenship at birth) that makes them natural born citizens.

by Adrien Nash  April 2015  obama–nation.com

 Download the PDF version, 3 pages: Citizenship Types and the Amazing Milk Analogy
[ https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/citizenship-types-and-the-amazing-milkc2a0analogy.pdf ]

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 Citizenship Types and the Amazing Milk Analogy

  1. slcraignbc says:

    Well, I continue to take a great deal of abuse from both Anti-Birther 0’bot’s and Bithers of all stripes as I continue to assert that the “CIRCUMSTANCES” attending at birth are the determinative factors of who is and is not a U.S. natural born Citizen under U.S. Law and that it is NOT necessary to rely or to resort to ANY historical source other than the actual laws of the U.S.

    [THAT IS ALMOST TRUE, BUT NOT QUITE. YOU ONLY MADE TWO HUGE ERRORS. The first is in the false presumption that only circumstances “at birth” are determinative of natural citizenship by birth. “at birth” is irrelevant to natural citizenship by blood. What is relevant is whether or not “at conception” one’s parents were Americans. THAT is the natural means of producing a natural citizen, -but you are correct in part because there is also a legal means.

    It involves having either or both parents not being an American at conception but latter are/is naturalized before birth occurs.

    Your second error is the damnable lie that natural citizenship is determined by Law. LAW IS IRRELEVANT TO NATURAL CITIZENSHIP! IT PRE-DATES THE LAW AND WITHOUT IT THERE WERE BE NO CITIZENRY AND NO LAW OF THEIR CREATION.

    And adding to your error is the false claim that natural citizenship is explained somewhere in U.S. law when that has never been and will never be something that any Congress would dare to put into writing.

    Even if one ever did, it would require an amendment to the Constitution to become law because natural citizenship is a constitutional issue, not a legislative issue.
    It is constitutional because it is fundamental. It is fundamental because it is rooted and ground in the very meaning of English language words, and no Congress has the authority to create its own meaning for common words. ~~~]

    In order to dismiss my rantings it is necessary to LIMIT the words of the Constitution and to deny the wholeness of their meanings; i.e.; … ” …The Congress shall have power …To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, … throughout the United States;”

    [~YES! YOU ARE CORRECT SIR! YOUR RANTINGS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT LIMITED BY THE LIMITING WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION! Instead they inject ideas that are not present, authority that does not exist, and an interpretation unsupported by anything or any court that ever followed the Constitution and its 9th and 10th Amendments.]

    The word “naturalization” has no political meaning except in relation to “citizenship” and the word “citizenship” has no meaning until political determinations are made to describe it.

    [THAT IS FALSE! NO POLITICAL DETERMINATION IS NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF PLAIN ENGLISH! AS ONCE FAMOUSLY STATED: “CITIZENSHIP IS MEMBERSHIP IN A NATION. NOTHING MORE.”]

    So the word, “naturalization”(noun), when considered in whole, must include all of the political determinations regarding “citizens / citizenship” and not be limited to its verb sense as used in the final act of a process to make one, i.e., “naturalize / naturalizing”(verb)
    [AND THEREWITH YOU SPEW A DOCTRINE OF DEVILS. NO ARE SAYING IN EFFECT THAT NO ONE BELONGS TO ANYONE ELSE IN THIS RANDOM, INCOHERENT, NON-LOGICAL AND NATURE-LESS WORLD. YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THERE IS NO SUCH NATURAL THING AS “US” OR “THEM”, “OURS” AND “THEIRS” -MEANING THAT NO NATURAL BONDS EXIST BETWEEN MEMBERS OF FAMILIES, OR CLANS, OR TRIBES, OR COUNTRIES, OR NATIONS.
    YOUR FUNDAMENTAL PREMISE IS ILLOGICAL TO THE MAX AND UNEXPLAINABLE WITHIN YOUR OWN PARADIGM. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN MAKING A STRANGER INTO A “NATURAL MEMBER” OF ONE’S GROUP HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATURAL ORIGIN OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE GROUP????

    YOU ARE EITHER THE WORLD’S BIGGEST LIAR OR THE WORLD’S BIGGEST IDIOT BECAUSE YOU ARE PROCLAIMING, IN EFFECT, THAT “ADOPTION LAW” IS RELATED TO ALL CHILDREN & ALL PARENTS, AND THEREFORE ALL PARENTAL RELATIONSHIPS FALL UNDER ADOPTION LAW!!!! IN OTHER WORDS; THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NATURAL BORN CHILD EXCEPT AS DEFINED BY THE ARBITRARY RULES OF ADOPTION LAW WHICH MAY HAVE NO DIRECT ORIGIN IN THE ACTUAL MEANING OF WORDS!!!

    UNDERSTAND THIS: “NATURAL” IS NOT CONNECTED TO ANY LAW, INCLUDING ADOPTION LAW NOR NATURALIZATION LAW!!! HOW STUPID TO YOU HAVE TO BE TO THINK THE OPPOSITE IS REALITY???
    I WON’T CORRECT YOU AGAIN IN ANY FUTURE REPETITION OF THIS HERETICAL TREASONOUS DOGMA. ANY FURTHER SUCH COMMENTS WILL SIMPLY BE DELETED.]

    Then there is the combination of words, “an uniform Rule”, which was part of the title of the 1st 1790 Act under the Constitutional Clause and was in continuous use through 1798, yet no one seems curious enough to ask, ‘what was / is the established uniform Rule’ made in those Acts.

    But that can not be known without 1st knowing what is an uniform Rule, adding, throughout the U.S. Going back to the Greeks and Aristotle, then to the Romans and on to England, such a term in the contexts of political determinations and laws would be understood as a “doctrine” or as a “common law”.

    [THAT IS ABSURD! FIRST, THE WORDS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A “TERM” NOR A “DOCTRINE” That is a lying pretense, along with the fraudulent claim that reference to ANCIENT AUTHORITY may be useful to ascertain the meaning of the mysterious “term” “uniform”+”rule”.

    It is truly serpentine to convey that “uniform” and “rule” constitute a term that is not defined by the meaning of the words. You are truly a traitor to America and American natural rights by knowingly promulgating an idea that is patently false and whose true interpretation has been repeated pointed out to you and everyone else.

    Do you really think that everyone is too stupid to understand that the 13 sovereign nations of America had their own individual naturalization laws since after the revolution, if not before?

    Is everyone so stupid as to swallow your BS that ignores the fact that the nation needed a single uniform rule for all 13 States to adhere to in their naturalization proceedings? Well we aren’t the stupid one. You are!]

    And I suppose it is here that the other two sides go ballistic as I suggest that the Framers were so bold as to MAKE LAW without citing a specific source or specific precedent that would be binding thereafter upon all of the Nation’s inhabitants, existing Citizens and aliens alike.

    [“BOLD”? NO, “bold” is not what they would have been. Constitutionally criminal and insane is what they would have been, violating their oath to support, protect and defend the Constitution above all else. You are SUGGESTing that they would have been as treasonous as you would have been, making law based on nothing! NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER!]

    I. on the other hand, have no problem with it, having read and come to understand the necessity of the Preamble; that being as an introductory reassertion of the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence thereafter joining that document with the document now being Ordained and Established.

    [AND THE REASON THAT YOU FAILED TO DELINEATE EXACTLY HOW THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BACKED NATIVE-BIRTH CITIZENSHIP AS NATURAL, AND ALSO PROSCRIBED FOREIGN-BIRTH AS UNNATURAL AND UNAMERICAN, -THAT REASON IS NONEXISTENT.
    YOU PRETEND THAT THE REAL MEANING OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE
    GIFT OF LEGAL CITIZENSHIP AS DETERMINED BY CONGRESS AND IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIVE-BIRTH. THAT IS CITIZENSHIP FOR THE ALIEN-BORN IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND YOUR ELEVATING IT TO “NATURAL” STATUS IS A TOTAL BETRAYAL OF THE UNALIENABLE RIGHT OF EVERY AMERICAN COUPLE TO PASS THEIR NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP ON TO THEIR PROGENY. YOU BETRAY EVERY AMERICAN PARENT AND EVERY AMERICAN BORN OF AMERICANS WITH THAT STINKING TRIPE.]
    p.s. have a real nice day (you wolf in shepherds clothing!)
    pps. What you wish were true is not a bad thing at all in this day and age wherein there are dozens of fellow free independent democratic nations. And with that being so, being born of a parent from one of them is not anymore or less a threat to national security than is being born of treasonous liberal who are natural born citizens. “Can you say “Alger Hiss, boys and girls?” How about Leon Ames? Or Robert Hanson?

  2. Rosslynne McCullough says:

    PLEASE ADD TWITTER TO YOUR POSTS SO I CAN TWEET THEM @Cutiepi2u

    Thanks,

    ❤️

    Rosslynne

    FREEDOM IN ACTION Pay It Forward

    Sent from my iPad

    >

  3. arnash says:

    Rosslynne, I would do as you request but have no means or knowledge of how to do it. I have never owned a cell phone, and have never had a twitter account so I would need some guidance as to how to add twitter to my posts. You point out the path and I’ll follow along, assuming it is possible from a Windows XP desktop or a MacBook.

  4. arnash says:

    I’ve inserted my responses into the previous post by slcraignbc

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: