Subtle Citizenship Deceptions that Deny A Natural Right

Steven Lee Craig wrote:

“Adrien…. I suggest that the ESTABLISHED uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization IS…; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world…”. Now, if that is not synonymous with the “birthright citizenship” that you are speaking of then you’re right, I don’t know what birthright citizenship means… to you!

I know what it meant to Aristotle and Vattel and under the original usage in English law…. but if it is not “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world…” in your world ….then you can keep your idea of birthright citizenship and keep it to yourself.”

My reply:

You have made six notable and significant errors in that statement. 1. “the ESTABLISHED” (uniform Rule)
Problem: You are attempting to assert that law and the rules of citizenship are determined by opinion rather than facts, -by consensus opinion, but in fact facts, including legal facts and scientific facts, are NOT established by opinion. Only opinions are established by opinions.

2. You deceitfully insert the core element of your traitorous dogma by the addition of “ (U.S. Citizenship {implicit})”, attempting to “ESTABLISH” the falsehood that the authority of Congress to write a uniform rule (for the States to adopt as a nation-wide standard for the naturalization of foreign immigrant men) somehow magically also includes the 98% of Americans who were natives and born of Americans.

You attempt to include them in the same corral or class with those who were foreign born subjects so that you can then reframe the meaning of what a natural born citizen is via the false dogma that Congress could, by its mighty power, rewrite the natural rule, the natural principle by which Americans were Americans.
That way you can jettisoning that principle (naturally inherited national membership due to blood lineage) and replace it with no principle other than the false “rule” or maxim that you quoted (and probably authored).

3. You built your house of cards on a false quote which is exposed by the wording of the uniform rule that Congress wrote, which stated quite explicitly that children of naturalized men were not U.S. Citizens unless “dwelling” within the United States. So your supposedly irrefutable quote claiming their children became American citizens “anywhere in the world” is patently false.

You attempted to pass that lie off as a fact in order to lump the foreigner-born children of immigrants together with the foreign-born children of Americans, -over whom Congress had some authority if the father was foreign and the mother was American, but did not have authority over children of a naturalized foreign father & mother since his children by Natural Law were deemed to be whatever he was.
To Congress, if he was foreign then so were they. If he was American, then so were they because they were a part of him, -the family being a single sociological unit with a single nationality flowing from a single head.
4. You used the verb “IS” regarding what the established rules of citizenship are but the present tense is inappropriate in relation to what “natural born citizen” meant in 1787 when it was written into the Constitution. You try to confuse the meaning of citizenship by conflating and ignoring its dual origins:
Natural inheritance for American children, or…
national law for native-born immigrants’ children, -as if all “citizens at birth” can’t be distinguished by the factor of origin and therefore must all be labeled as natural born citizens.

5. You invoke the term: “birthright citizenship” without acknowledging that it means something other than what you pretend it means.
6. And…you falsely conflate British nationality law with the Natural Law pointed out by the Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel [The Law of Nations, 1758] when they are in fact contrary to each other; with Vattel supporting only national membership inherited from one’s father, while the British embraced native-birth, not blood, as the basis of national membership.

Your view is treasonous to the very foundation of Natural Rights. They are not given by government and cannot be denied by government either, -EXCEPT IN A DICTATORSHIP such as you imagine the United States to be.
You dare to assert that a sovereign right can be limited by the servant of the sovereign??? What orifice do you have your head up? The servants and the representatives of We, the People cannot tell us that our “God-given rights” can be limited by our servants!

That means that a right cannot be granted, adjusted, regulated, restricted, or rescinded as you imagine that our Natural Right of membership can be via the unlimited power of an ALMIGHTY Congress.
That means a Congress that giveth, and then taketh away, -just like a god. A Congress that can say:
“We said (in 1790) your foreign-born children are natural American citizens regardless of the insignificant place where they enter the world. But wait! We now change our mind (1795). Now such children are born as aliens by our own unexplained and unexplainable caprice. We did that because our “naturalization power” is unlimited. You must therefore bow to your servant and make him your master. He now says your “naturalized” son can’t be President, ever.”

Only totalitarians and the ignorant fail to understand that the authority of a Right supersedes the legitimate authority of all governments. No government has the authority to tell anyone that they have no right to breathe, to reproduce, to own their own, to pass their name, status, and membership on to them, including their national membership.
No legitimate government, including the American government, can tell its masters that they have a “right” to pass their national membership to their progeny but only in a location that the servant agrees to (within US borders). Yet that is the madness that you are promulgating.
Natural national Rights are not restricted by geography or artificial boundaries, so how the hell can the servant tell his master that his child born outside of the estate is an unwelcome foreigner unless the servant gives him his benediction by allowing the child to be legally adopted by his father the master????????

That’s the insanity that you are preaching! Naturalization is adoption at the national level. The children of the members of any group are NOT adopted members but are NATURAL members, (just as with natural children). They were once the 98% in early America.

You covertly continue to push the bastardized falsehood that Congress was given full and complete authority over ALL CITIZENSHIP OF ALL TYPES. That is a wicked lie of a crypto-totalitarian!
Congress only has authorization to make the States’ naturalization rules “uniform” instead of divergent from each other. END OF STORY! END OF AUTHORITY! END OF LEGISLATED INTENT!
But that FACT destroys your covert dogma that native-birth common law citizenship is a co-equal avenue to presidential eligibility with natural citizenship by blood inheritance, by descent, by birth-right.
Just to be clear for the umpteenth time, the first born of a father of some means was born with a birthright, -a right by birth as the first-born to inherit the father’s estate, name, title, etc. That is a custom that was thousands of years old, mentioned in the Bible even, and is known as Primogeniture. Prime meaning “first”.

It was and is the tradition by which monarchs pass their Crown to their firstborn son. The wife did not inherit her husbands property. The Queen did not inherit the Throne. The firstborn son did because that was his birthright. It did not make any difference if he was born in the Palace, on the family estate or born elsewhere, including outside of the kingdom. His birthplace was irrelevant because he could be born anywhere.

The British Parliament took a while to get around to recognizing that “anywhere” also included beyond the borders of the Crown but by 1350 that was remedied to be in compliance with Natural Law because Natural Law is supreme as the foundation of civilization.
Human law is an abstract constructed to comport with Natural Law, -a shadow of Natural Law, and yet you bow down to the shadow instead of to the reality. That is treasonous to Natural Rights & American values.

By Adrien Nash April 2015 obama–

In PDF format (two pages): Subtle Citizenship Deceptions that Deny A Natural Right
[ ]


Here’s a scary constitutional thought: The 13 States of the Union retained all authority not given to Congress, which included the right that had always been theirs, which was to naturalize foreigners.
If they did so in a manner out of harmony with the uniform rule passed by Congress (like naturalizing someone who was not white or free) then the person would be a State citizen but not a citizen of the Union.

Now imagine this: California and Texas and New York all pass laws allowing the naturalization of illegal immigrants. They would become State citizens where they live and work, and would even have the right to vote in State elections, but would not be recognized as US citizens.
Fortunately, none of the States are aware of their own sovereign authority over citizenship, as well as immigration, -so that nightmare will never come to pass. It would negate the authority of almighty Washington and liberal States don’t want that, except when it comes to making liberal things legal, like smoking reefer.