Citizenship Types and the Amazing Milk Analogy
April 26, 2015 4 Comments
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 ]