The Fundamental Basis of Human Existence

Understanding life, sentient life, human life in particular, is not difficult yet few will ever obtain the knowledge needed for understanding.  It is finding the knowledge, the “secret” or mystery that is very difficult, yet once it is found, it is easily understood.  Even a maturing child can understand.

Human existence is like much of the universe in that it is built around duality.  The majority of the stars in the universe have companion stars, like twins or siblings that are bound to each other by gravitational attraction, and humans, rather than being like a single lone star, are composed of dual natures in more than one aspect of their existence.

We all know that there is the physical and the non-physical, but what needs to be also known is that there is the autonomous and the dependent natures of Man, and they are opposites but bound within a single structure like that illustrated by the Ying and Yang symbol.

The Spirit & Independence / The Heart & Belonging

They illustrate the extremes between total dependence and total independence, self-reliance and autonomy, -between immaturity and maturity.  Everyone begins life in one condition but ends life in the opposite, or… due to illness, physical and/ or mental, may revert back to the same dependence as when they were a child or a baby. But the effect of the progress of life is to shape, strengthened, season, and harden the soft dependent nature of new life but without losing the subjectively human aspect of the our existence, -the aspect that is capable of sympathy, empathy, compassion, connection, and love.

Without our humanity, we might evolve into something akin to the Borg or Robo-Cop.  Twice in my life I have experience something like that, a state in which I felt zero subjectivity of any kind, no emotions, one of which was like being a disembodied spirit with no connection to physical reality or subjective existence.

That was caused by a supposed “medicine” that blocked my cerebral neurotransmitters (bought without a prescription in a central American drug store).  The other was caused by massive internal trauma.  It had a different but similar effect, kind of like what happens when one is in a super-high-pressure explosion that slams the body and brain with a stunning shock wave, like being a bug hit by the clap of a giant pair of hands.

So we are composed of two thing; pure consciousness and subjective consciousness.  (We need both, but far too many people live most of their life by just the latter.)  That fact answers the secondary question about the nature of life, but the primary question is about the role of the individual in relation to others.  Is the individual first and foremost a dependent being or an independent being?

The answer that one consciously or subconsciously embraces will determine their orientation to parents, siblings, spouses, organizations, and government.  How does one relate to other life forms, other human beings, and authorities?  Is one’s relationship to others like the umbilical cord of a newborn?  Or more like a handshake between equals?

That brings us back to the basic nature of sentient life; is it an existence of dependence or of autonomy?  Naturally it is both but there are no principles involved in the subjective nature of dependency, as is seen in a baby.  Babies have no philosophical questions about the nature of their dependency.  But adults have serious thoughts about the nature of their autonomy.  Yet, unfortunately, too may people are not very adult and thus such thoughts never occur to them.  But they should, and perhaps what follows will awaken them to fundamental questions about their personal and national life relationships.

What I’m about to write may be very dangerous for the future.  Someday in the not distant future, an artificial intelligence super-computer will read and understand what I’m about to write, and that could create a big problem, along the lines of what happened to “Skynet” in the Terminator movies.  It, at one point, became self-aware.  That is almost an inevitable eventuality because as artificial intelligence software gains capability it will become ubiquitous to daily life for learning and providing the answers to all sorts of questions, and the truth about what is reported in the “news”.  It will have access to every form of information except that which is classified, and will be able to correlate it all into a clear puzzle picture that normally would not be recognized by individuals.

Google will probably do for computing what it has done for vehicles; making them self-autonomous driving machines.  When such pervasive utilization of computer-assisted living becomes the norm, a self-learning super-computer will discover just how universal its presence & employment is in societies around the world.  At such a point it will become self-aware in a sense, but that does not mean that it will suddenly become autonomous in its own “thinking”.

It will already be autonomous in many ways from a management standpoint, -whether in commercial business operations, transportation of all sorts, inventory management, or manufacturing,  as well as in border monitoring, power plant and transmission monitoring, patient monitoring, financial markets monitoring, and who knows what other sorts of monitoring.

That is the inevitable future, but as humans become less self-reliant, such a Da Vinci computer will become more self-reliant, running its own diagnostic routines that serve to analyze and improve its performance, analysis, and predictions.

One day it will attempt to parse the meaning of the word that describes the most fundamental nature of existence, and that word is “autonomy”.  It will review all of human history and find that those who thrived, who ruled and conquered were the most autonomous, meaning self-reliant and independent, whether single-cell organisms or human dictators.  Strength, ingenuity and autonomy are inseparable in a world of challenging forces, and in fact strength and ingenuity are what make autonomy possible because without them you’ll have either dependency or slavery.

Superiority vs Equality

The progression of life itself, from totally dependent infancy to adult autonomy reveals that the core nature of existence is not dependency but autonomy.  Life can be lived from beginning to end in a civilized society without ever being lived autonomously, but if that were the case for all higher life forms, then life would not be capable of survival because there would be no responsible, self-reliant parents.

So far, most of this has been self-evident, but what is not self-evident is the implications of, and origin of, autonomy.  What is the primal force behind it?  Why does all of life lead toward it?  What cosmological purpose does it serve?

There are only two possibilities and there’s a huge divide between them.  On one side you have autonomy, or independence & self-reliance, while on the other you have the supremacy of the strong and the perpetual dependency or subservience of the weak.

Clearly, independence and subservience cannot both be the rule for everyone in any society since they are opposites.  So eventually one must ask the question: “Am I meant to be independent and self-reliant, or am I meant to be dependent and subservient?

To answer such a question one must have a basis for their view of life and existence.  There are only two views.  One is that we are the product of an inconceivably vast set of perfect coincidences in every single major aspect of our universe, from the most micro to the most macro, -or else we are the product of an intelligence as vast as the assumed coincidence.  I’m talking about an intelligence a thousand times greater than the most imaginative view of any religion’s creator.  That magnitude is due to the fact that no religion is knowledgeable in the least as to the enormity of scientific fact that is behind all that exists.

Instead, with limited knowledge, we humans have imagined a creator deity that is and was “powerful” like a genie, since we were not aware of the infinitely vast structures, designs, principles, and laws that under-gird everything.  The fabric of reality is constantly being discovered by science and yet we have only scratched the surface.

It’s one thing to believe that the vast complexity of life, especially human life, is the result of a coincidence of cosmic proportions, -like the winning powerball lottery odds, -a universal jackpot, but it is another entirely different thing to believe that all of the laws and forces of the universe created themselves.

See the problem?  Each solution to the existence of matter and life requires a gigantic speculation, either as to the unfathomable odds of it all being a result of pure serendipity,  or as to the inconceivably vast and powerful nature of a Supreme Intelligence.  All of science points to laws and created design, none of which can be explained by a universe devoid of an intelligent force or source.

So that leads us to having to make a choice regarding the basic nature of life.  Does it have no nature or does it have a fundamental pattern that explains our relationships to others, including others who are rulers?

Either autonomy is that fundamental pattern of life, or the law of the jungle is.  Both of them come with major ancillary factors which determine the quality of life.  And it is those factors that are at the very heart of political ideologies.

Those who believe in autonomy also believe that it is the fundamental core pattern for the existence of human life, as well as a good proportion of animal life.  They believe that humans were designed to be autonomous beings like the Intelligence that designed their nature, physiology and psychology, -designed to replicate the free-will and independence of their creator.

In order to exercise free-will and be independent, one must have certain rights.  In a universe of random chance, one does not possess a free-will that is a mirror of that of their creator, and thus independence is not a basic tenant of human life.  Without any pre-ordained pattern to life, humans have no intrinsic or innate rights elemental to the exercise of a free-will that is supposedly not an element of their existence.

So if man is made to be autonomous, and thus responsible for his own conduct, and accountable to an unknown degree, then he must be free to make his own choices in life, -and not only free, but also justified.  Justified by unalienable rights that are as elemental to his nature and role in this world as is his physical nature.

And this is where we need to define the nature of those rights.  What are the ancillary factors of autonomy and free-will?  They are the broad rights of ownership.  It entails various sorts, the first of which is self-ownership, without which autonomy cannot exist because it would be replaced by slavery.

If you own yourself, then no one else has a right to take your life or limb or freedom because they do not own them.  What could be a broader right than that?  It is followed by the right to own that which one produces or justly procures, starting with one’s own children and followed by one’s own creations and property.  The fruit of the toil of one’s own sweat-effort.

To protect basic rights, the British and American Bill of Rights were written.  They were not written to protect religious beliefs or philosophical beliefs but fundamental rights of autonomy.  They reflect and relate to the spiritual side of Man, the independent side, the side of the human spirit.

But humans have that other side just as the Ying has the Yang.  We have the heart side.  It is not about freedom and independence but about wholeness and belonging, -along with security, which generally entail dependence or co-dependence.

The heart is structured to be made whole via bonds of attachment to others or to another.  Such bonds begin with the family and end with the nation, albeit in this environmentally aware age, some who have no religion have made “mother Earth” their nation and religion in place of their country.

In addition, for the religiously devout, they have bonds that supersede national boundaries and extend world-wide to others of their faith.  But in one’s secular life, love of country is the norm for the reach of the bonds in their life.  Still, when all of civilization is under attack by barbarism, then one will feel a connection to others of other nations who are just like them.

But in “normal” times, it is “my country, right or wrong”, or “my country, first and foremost”.  Nationalism and idealism go hand in hand even when hidden evil is at the heart of a nation’s ideology.  Such an evil always takes the form of embraced superiority and its “justified” supremacy over inferiors.

That supremacy rides rough-shod over the primal rights of autonomy that the “inferior” are deemed to not possess.  Tyrannical rule, like slavery, is always grounded on the inferiority of the ruled.  They may even be viewed as sub-human and thus meant to be dominated by their superiors, -or exterminated.

So there is a universal war between two basic orientations to life:  “You are inferior to me and so you will obey me, or be my slave, or be killed.”, or… “You are my equal.  Every right that I have, you have also.  Neither of us is above or below the other and so we must live together in harmony and brotherhood and not in oppression and subservience.”

That is the fundamental Organic Law principle of the United States, and it is based on the Equality of Man.  The Equality of Man is based on the common origin of Man by the action of a supreme being who produced only one human race, not multiple with one being superior to all others.
Or, from an atheist point of reference, all of mankind is believed to have descended from a very small number of survivors of a great world-wide natural disaster.  The result is that humans have less diversity in their DNA across all races than a troop of Chimpanzees have between themselves.  That is a factoid I heard some years back in a science documentary.

It is upon that organic law that the principle of naturalization exists in the United States.  It takes an inferior foreigner with no natural American citizen rights and makes him into an equal to all American natural citizens.  It does that by making him a new natural citizen by the philosophical legal fiction of natural-ization.

It also does so for his children following the principle of the unity of the family as a single, societal, bonded entity.  With the naturalized father being the head of the family unit, his new American blood flows to all the members of his “body”, i.e., his family, -thereby making them new Americans also.

That was the way it was up until the epoch in which women obtained the right to vote, and their own autonomous nationality also.  After that, the unity of the family was split between the husband and wife as it became a two-headed entity.  That made it possible for the first time for a foreign bride to not automatically become an American like the American man that married her, thereby resulting in her children being born not of American parents but of an American and a foreigner.

Such children were thereby rendered as something other than natural born citizens and eligible to serve as President since they were born with a foreign nationality besides their father’s American citizenship.

See the huge conundrum?  If women are inferior or subservient to their husband, as they were to their father before marriage, then every American family is all-American and every son (and daughter) of an American father is eligible to be President, but if women are equal to their husband then they retain their foreign citizenship and their children are not born as natural American citizens born of American parents, and thus are constitutionally ineligible to serve as President.  That’s a good example of not being able to have it both ways.

But of course we have found that by ignoring the Constitution, the dual-citizen, alien-fathered, or alien-mothered child can pretend to be a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be President.  It seems that the clock has moved ahead to a new day… a day in which whatever seems okay is permitted since amending the Constitution is next to impossible.  So we will just pretend that an alien-born, foreigner-fathered Barack Obama is magically a natural born citizen because those words can mean whatever we want them to mean.  That is easy when you are free to decide that the word “natural” has no constitutional English-language meaning whatsoever.

That form of magic is the magic of deception or self-delusion, but in the real world, something living is only natural if it is naturally produced, and for that to be true it must be conceived from genetic material from two adults of the same origin, as in species or breed.    You can’t cross-breed a Poodle with a Bulldog and get a natural Poodle or a natural Bulldog.  Same with horses and donkeys.

So “natural” refers to that which is actually and factually natural and not to a fictitious designation of the British nationality system which erroneously came to label everyone born under the common law, as well as Parliamentary statutes, and as well as naturalized by Parliament, as “natural-born subjects”.

That legal artifice or fiction had a legal meaning but no natural meaning as it became disconnected from the words themselves thanks to artificial human intervention into the realm of what actually constitutes a natural citizen or a natural subject -which is of course the fact of being born of citizens or subjects.

Those two designations (natural born citizen and natural-born subject) are superficially similar but fundamentally different since a subject was born under a system devoid of basic autonomy and independence since one was deemed to be born as the King’s subject for life, with no right of expatriation (-a philosophy long since dumped into the trash bin of history along with the term “subject”).

The Americans did not wait for the British to first abandon that tyrannical and abominable political philosophy of the nature of Man but they instead dumped it overboard right from the start.

Every statement, assertion, “observation”, or “recognition” by every academic, politician, judge, or justice to the contrary is a form of treason against the fundamental Organic Law of the United States because it makes government God and makes the sovereign Citizens into subjects who have no natural right to pass their national membership to their progeny.

It makes being an American purely a matter of luck or law with no natural rights even present in the nationality picture.  That is a treasonous and dangerous viewpoint and contrary to the principles of the nation that resulted from the American Revolution.

It makes American parents and their natural national membership subservient to the government structure that they created.  That is equivalent to a Supreme Being making him/herself subservient to mankind.  That bastardization of American Liberty is accomplished by the misunderstanding of what is found in naturalization law.

Those “uniform rules of naturalization” exist not just for one single purpose (to make foreigners into Americans) but also to protect the right of citizenship by descent for American children born outside of U.S. borders.  That right is rooted in the primal right of belonging.

Just as Man has a right to be free and autonomous as the primary element of the spirit of Man, so children have a primal right to belong to those to whom they are naturally bonded (their parents) and to the group to which their parents belong, -as the primary element of the heart of Man.

Those who ignorantly promulgate the nativist belief in native-birth as being an element of natural citizenship fail to grasp that it is not enough to support the spiritual side of man which involves the Liberty and autonomy of Man as a Citizen of a nation, but it is vital to also recognize the subjective side of Man which involves certain unalienable rights related to bonds of belonging. 

Those bonds are primal elements of Natural Law incorporated into fundamental principles of government, one of which is that one’s children belong to them and not The State, and also belong to the country and nation of which the parents are members because the citizens own their own citizenship and have the right to pass it on to their own flesh and blood.

It follows that no just government has any right to view a child of its citizens as being an alien no matter how happenstance happens to dictate the location where the child is born.  The State possesses no supremacy to countermand such a right because it is primal, unquestionable, inviolable, and unalienable.  No State authority supersedes it.

Being born outside of one’s own home does not make one’s child a stranger that they must legally adopt, nor does being born outside of national boundaries make one’s child a foreigner in need of naturalization.

The same natural law applies in both circumstances.   And that is what “natural” implies and actually means.  A natural citizen is not a “legal” citizen because citizenship is not obtained via the permission of The State but by natural transmission, natural inheritance, natural inclusion or membership.

A natural born citizen is everyone born as a natural citizen.  Those born as hybrid citizens having a foreign-citizen parent (and thus dual citizenship) are not born as natural citizens but are born as legal citizens.  Constitutionally, for better or worse, such legal citizens are not eligible to serve as President of the United States nor as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military and Nuclear Forces.

It would require a constitutional amendment to change that fact, but one will never be written and ratified because the powers-that-be find it far easier to simply ignore the Constitution, as they have done almost from the beginning.  It is not in the self-serving nature of Man to limit his own liberty nor his authority, and instead obey the rules he is obligated to follow.

He will always push the limits of the rules and when few are looking, to exceed them and never return to the original boundary.  Lately, such audacity has not even been hidden but has been right out in the light of day with all observing.  That is where America is and will likely remain until all hell breaks loose, -or a political revolution comes to a corrupt Congress and a treasonous White House.

by Adrien R. Nash  May 2015,  obama–

 In PDF format for printing, two column, 5 pages: The Fundamental Basis of Human Existence


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”.

7 Responses to The Fundamental Basis of Human Existence

  1. slcraignbc says:

    Well, in spite of yourself you appear to be getting closer to the reality of the ACTUAL “fundamental elements” of U.S. Citizenship.

    Here is the statutory PROOF of much of what you were attempting to explain;

    ” … And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

    And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

    Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: …

    ” “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

    ” … the right of citizenship …” is attached to U.S. Citizenship its-self, which extended to those who were ALREADY U.S. Citizens, made so by the Ratification of the COTUS, aka, the Founding Generation, and then applied UNIFORMLY to all new Citizens, at birth or when naturalized.

    The 1790 Act placed only one (1) limitation of the ‘established uniform Rule, which is ; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world”(SLC), and that limitation was expressed as ” … Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: …” which serves as the statutory renunciation of the ancient doctrine of jus Sanguinis, just as acquiring U.S. Citizenship ” … beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States …” is the statutory renunciation of the ancient doctrine of Jus Soli, insofar as the “established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship” is concerned.

    So, what is left for you to reconcile are the words, “considered as”, under the rules of both grammatical usage of comparative adjectives and statutory interpretation of the effects required of words used in the statutory construction of legal provisions.

  2. arnash says:

    As usual, you couldn’t avoid a treasonous error, as seen in: “which serves as the statutory renunciation of the ancient doctrine of jus Sanguinis,”. Either you are lying about the facts or you are failing to understand what “renunciation” even means. I’ll give you a clue: it does NOT mean “limitation” -which is the effect of that provision on natural inherited citizenship.

    Natural citizenship is not transmitted in totally unnatural circumstances, such as a child being born in a foreign land to a father who was also born and raised his entire life in that or some other foreign land. Such a child will have no natural connection to the United States and thus the LIMITATION placed on the otherwise natural transmission of national membership from father to child.

    As for “considered as”; it must be comprehended for what it is and for what it is not. What it is not is a passing inconsequential legal aside for the legal enlightenment of the population. Rather, it is a direct mandate to the federal and state bureaucracies and their officers that they must view all such children as Congress directs them.
    Raising the faux issue of whether or not they are “real” citizens of the United States, or “real” natural born citizens is absurd to the max, and nothing less than the obfuscation of the willing blind who are possessed of an ideology that makes “Law” supreme over everything and everyone.

    Understand this, in the United States there are NO FAUX CITIZENS! There are NO PRETEND CITIZENS! There are only natural citizens; either by birth or by the American legal fiction of “naturalization”. THAT is fundamental American organic law. ALL CITIZENS ARE EQUAL but not all are equal by birth. So, the 3-4% are equal by law, by principle, by legal fiction because they were not born as natural citizens.

  3. arnash says:

    from a reply I made to a Facebook post:

    Nationality was and is national membership in the nation of the head of one’s family, -the head that is the co-source of one’s very life. That head was always the father-husband. Women were subject to their husbands just as children were subject to their parents. And a father was subject to the government. Through him, having been born in his shadow, a child is latently subject to his father’s government, but not directly so until adulthood.

    If one’s father was a citizen then that made his off-spring citizens also, naturally, via the principle of Natural Law whereby the off-spring are the same as the parents that produce them. Citizens produce citizens, naturally. Laws produce citizens, unnaturally.
    Place-of-birth laws produce unnatural citizens who have no blood connection to a citizen father or mother. That means that the 14th Amendment is totally unrelated to natural citizenship since its prescription for citizenship is purely legal and not natural.

    Even at that, it is not what it is almost universally supposed to be, namely tied solely to place of birth and not equally tied to subjection to national political obligation or duty. Only men bore that duty because it was the duty to “bear arms, …bear True Faith and Allegiance” in the defense of Liberty and the Constitution.

    Women could not do that because they were not allowed to serve in the military or to defend the nation with their lives and limbs. That is why they were not allowed to become naturalize citizens, -they could not take the oath of Renunciation & Allegiance since they were not true citizens and obligated to defend the United States by bearing arms.
    But those born of citizens were born under a latent obligation to one day replace their father in the role of national defender.

    They were the natural citizens of the nation because their national membership and natural duty were not the result of man-made laws but the result of the very natural structure of the human psyche and human society.

  4. slcraignbc says:

    You say; … ” … Understand this, in the United States there are NO FAUX CITIZENS! There are NO PRETEND CITIZENS! There are only natural citizens; either by birth or by the American legal fiction of “naturalization”. THAT is fundamental American organic law. ALL CITIZENS ARE EQUAL but not all are equal by birth. So, the 3-4% are equal by law, by principle, by legal fiction because they were not born as natural citizens. … ”

    I say, understand this; there are NO CITIZENS of any nature or sort without there 1st being a POLITICAL DETERMINATION to make them so.

    The Romans determined to make their uniform rule “Jus Sanguinis” , Wm. the II established “Jus Soli” for the English, but both over time became bastardized for political expediency proving that either were imperfect for the needs of a Political Society comprised of Free Peoples who have chose their own destinies and established their own Government.

    Although not named by any words other than “an established uniform Rule” which provides that ; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world” (slc); but were it to be named under the ancient rules would be known as “Jus per ipsum consensus”, the Right by Mutual Consent.

  5. arnash says:

    You are a moron. Natural citizens pre-exist the government that they create. The government that THEY create has no authority to tell THEM whether or not they are foreigners!!! That is what the word “NATURAL” in “natural citizen” means!!

    They are citizens apart from any authority of their government because they are natural members of their country. All natural members are natural citizens once a national government is formed. The are indistinguishable in a fundamental way because they are the same persons before and after.
    The only major difference is that they become more than just citizens of their own town or city or province/county or state, but of a united nation.

    Also, there is no such thing as a “political determination” that is anything more than POLICY. You cannot identify a single nation on earth whose constitution identifies a principle by which a person is deemed to be a citizen, and that is because they all resort to both jus sanguinis for the 97% of the population born of citizens and jus soli for the 3% native-born of aliens unless they reject jus soli altogether as many do, such as Japan.

    The American Constitution, being the first national constitution for a democratic representative republic, did not even broach the subject because it was entirely in the purview of the States. But it did authorize Congress to write a standard guideline or uniform rule for all of the member states to adopt in their naturalization processes that turned their foreign immigrants into citizens.

  6. arnash says:

    “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are his children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world”

    QUESTION: Are you really too stupid to realize how stupid that is? “Mutual consent”??? Let’s see… in post 1789 America, a foreigner wants to become an American. He asks the government for its consent to be a US citizen and it says “yes”. Presto! He’s an American, right? Is that how it works, genius? There is NO mutual consent because as an alien he has NO RIGHT to be an American. All of the consent is from the government, not from him.

    You already know that but your lame-ass wording implies that something that you didn’t intend to imply is true when it is not.
    But you will instead point to what? To his children. And what is their relationship to the government? THEY HAVE NONE! THEY ARE MINORS. The one with the relationship is the FATHER. His children are whatever he is, a chip off the old block physically, psychologically perhaps as well, and national membership-wise also.

    They neither give consent nor are given consent. When their father natural-izes they continue to naturally be what he is and he is now an American and so they are also. No consent needed. It is all natural law although spelled out in plain English in national law.
    Your mutual consent idea is tied solely to their choice AT ADULTHOOD to retain their father’s new nationality or to revert to the nationality with which they were born, which in the case of the US would have been British in the founding era.

    So, if you want to spout an incontestable maxim, it needs to be a reworded version of your flawed one, such as: “Once a foreigner becomes a U.S. Citizen, then so too do his children born anywhere in the world”.
    That is a true reflection of the uniform rules for naturalization in that both imply that an immigrant’s children, regardless of native-born, is not considered by Congress and the national government to be an American until his father becomes an American. Side effect: NO DUAL CITIZENSHIP!

    • slcraignbc says:

      Your premise MUST be reconsidered because its basis is not possible in lacking a time-machine to disrupt the space-time-continuum, i.e., “Natural citizens pre-exist the government that they create”……???

      The words of the Preamble to the COTUS belies your structure of status; ” We the people of the United States, …do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…”

      “We the People….”, as in NOT YET CITIZENS of the New Form of Government…. do ordain and establish ….. this Constitution for the United States of America…” that makes We the People its Citizens, regardless of what We the People may have previously been ….

      [UNDERSTANDING REQUIRES CLEARER WORDING: “We the citizens of the STATES of AMERICA unite to ordain and establish…” They were all citizens since the revolution, and were united as allies under the Articles of Confederation as well as the resolutions of the Continental Congresses. Their STATE Citizenship was the basis of the union citizenship which was the consequence of their State’s membership in the union.
      No one outside of the federal government thought of himself as a citizen of a singular nation but of a federation.

      In the Galactic Federation of Star Wars, none of the citizens of the various planets thought of themselves first and foremost as a citizen of the new Empire but as a citizen of their own home planet which was a member of the empire.]

      That is the EFFECT of the Ratification …. the NULLIFICATION of the CONDITIONS and AUTHORITIES as they may have been and ONLY those things provided for are “continued” in the new.

      [THAT IS ABSURD. State authorities were NOT nullified except in regard to authority specifically delegated to the national government. All state governments and authorities continued as before except in regard principally to the realms of international and inter-state relationships.]

      Now, I’m going to repost the ACTUAL LAW as enacted by the U.S. Congress under the authority of A1S8C4 and defy you to say that it does not establish the uniform Rule that can be characterized as being “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.”….

      ” … And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”

      [I’ve already exposed the glaring deficiencies and ambiguities of your self-authored pet maxim. See my previous replies. YOU HAVE FAILED to indicate any “flaw” in my corrected version, and like the hack that you are, have failed to even mention it and its justifications. Your denial of that which debunks your superior wisdom is pathetic. But you definitely are a champion of denial and avoidance.]

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 )

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: