~Natural Born Citizens & the Magic Kingdom Analogy

The American public suffers from misconceptions about presidential eligibility because of the expressed opinions of lawyers, academicians, and judges; opinions formed from one, and only one, perspective: the legal perspective. They look to antiquated concepts of nationality extant when the American colonies were ruled by the British. They do not look to that which they look to in order to understand all of the non-legal subject matter that they read, namely; the English language which they use as the foundation of their communication and thought.

Instead they abandon it and like faithful acolytes of the sacred order of “LAW”, they turn to a single aspect (native-birth) of England’s obsolete nationality law which has been abandoned and rejected by Great Britain herself; -law that the founders and framers of the Constitution turned their backs on, -turning instead to natural law, i.e., “the law of Nature and Nature’s God” as understood by common English language terms, including: citizen, natural, and born, -none of which are terms of legal artifice or artificiality; aka: a legal “term of art” which does NOT mean what its words mean.

That penchant for viewing anything related to presidential eligibility through the prism of legal fiction leads them all to an incorrect understanding of what the framers understood those three words to mean. To make clear how basic and simple was their natural understanding of those three English words, an excellent analogy will illustrate the truth that all of the “experts” are wrong because their “legal” approach is wrong.

Their approach is the unproven (and unprovable) assumption that the words do not mean what they say but instead say something that is in reality a bastardization of what the words actually mean, being a corruption of reason and fact. So let’s examine the reasons why their reasoning is unreasonable because it views the subject from the wrong paradigm; the British common law paradigm instead of the natural law paradigm.

Once upon a time, there was a Kingdom, -a Magic Kingdom, and its king was a man named His Royal Majesty: Walt Disney, (-the man who built the Kingdom himself, being its sole Lord and Master). The kingdom had certain rules, including one regarding lifetime membership.

One could obtain a lifetime membership via different avenues. Some could even be born with it, but that would be determined by who their parents were. If their parents were visitors on a day pass or a week pass, and their mother gave birth to them while visiting the kingdom, they would not qualify for lifetime membership. Even those who purchased a year pass could not qualify for the right to give birth to a child blessed with a lifetime membership. That was because none of those visitors were intimately tied to the kingdom and its people. They all were simply guests.

[analogy = children born to foreign tourists and guests of the government, including long-visit guests such as guest workers and guest students. Such visitors, and thus their child, have no connection to the United States since they are not Americans, nor born of Americans, nor naturalized as Americans, nor even immigrants permanently living among the Americans. They, and their child, are foreigners who have their permanent home in their own nation to which they are subject and will return.]

The Magic Kingdom has a rule that any child born to parents who are permanent live-in workers will be blessed with free lifetime membership in the kingdom but only if born within the kingdom. They would be native-born members.

But there is another kind of native-born member which is unrelated to them. Those of the other kind are also blessed with lifetime membership but it is not dependent on them being born within the Kingdom; it is not dependent on native-birth. Their lifetime membership is not related to their birth place, but to their origin. They can be born anywhere in the world because they are the grandchildren of Walt Disney.

They are born as lifetime members because they co-own the kingdom. They do not need the permission of the kingdom rules since their kind created the rules and the kingdom. They are its owners & masters.
Their lifetime membership is natural, -by right of inheritance, -and not rule-based. They are the natural born members of the Magic Kingdom, and they have the right to one day possibly be the director of the kingdom.

The children born to their live-in workers do not have that right because they are not natural members of the kingdom but instead are lifetime members by the allowance of the natural members. They are not eligible to ever be the President of the Kingdom because they were not born to the family members who own it.

[at this point, American legal fiction takes over, with the children of native-born children of permanent live-in workers being deemed to have been born as natural Disney family members. THAT is a fundamental American legal fiction, and it is known by the moniker: natural-ization. [Their native-born parents were naturalized, by legal fiction, at birth (granted lifetime membership) but they were not born as literal Disney family members.]

Their family membership is imputed because they were born of lifetime, native-born members, making them “natural” family members by legal fiction. They are allowed to one day possibly be President of the Kingdom. Their native-born parents are not eligible since they were not imputed to have been born as natural members of the greater Disney family. They were only born as lifetime members, not natural members with a right of lifetime membership and the right to one day perhaps be the kingdom’s President.

And that is the tale of the rule of lifetime membership and eligibility to be President of the Magic Kingdom. The rules, like those of America, involve permanent live-in membership, parents who are lifetime members, native-birth, blood connection to parent-owners of the kingdom, and fairy tale fiction which changes the status of certain members in order to make them equal to and equivalent to the natural members.
Membership fiction is a wonderful thing but it does not apply to everyone, nor does it apply universally to members in regard to the right to rule.

The End

by Adrien Nash February, 2016

In PDF format / two page: Natural Born Citizens & the Magic Kingdom Analogy

Post Script; Sept. 2016:
I found this in my citizenship file in a file titled “to be written”, which makes me suspect that I’ve never expanded on it and uploaded as a new post.  So here it is with the hope that it is not something already posted.

A Principle of Citizenship Hypothetical

If the President of Russia impregnated the female head of China, and they visited the United Nations in New York while she was 8 and a half months pregnant, and she prematurely gave birth there, what would be the nationality of the child? If the answer is non-US because they are representatives of foreign governments then the question is: “why does that make a difference?”
The answer is that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.
Then the question is: “why are they not subject to that jurisdiction?”

If a man from Mars, along with his pregnant wife from Venus, delivered a child in the U.S., would it be a U.S. citizen?  If you suppose that it would, then would it be a “natural born citizen’ and eligible to serve as the United States President?

The Bigamy of dual-citizenship.

The dual dater has one date at table “A” and another at table “B”, -has a girlfriend in hotel room A and another in room B, -has a wife in home “A” and another in home “B”. Where does his loyalty, his devotion, his allegiance lie? With one, or the other? Or both?, or neither?
How are those situations any different from a man with two or three countries and dual or triple citizenship due to native-birth to parents from two different foreign countries?  Where would his final allegiance lie?  Would such a question even be askable of a natural born citizen born of American citizen parents?

At some point in the past, some fool in the executive branch, perhaps an Attorney General, [John Griggs, 1898] or some head of the INS or the State Dept. ignorantly made a mindless leap of presumption about the 14th Amendment’s requirement that those born in the U.S. must be born subject to its full jurisdiction in order for citizenship to be attributed to them, and that government appointee assumed falsely that the jurisdiction referred to was related to civil jurisdiction -which foreign diplomats are immune to, instead of political jurisdiction, -which all non-immigrant Visa Card foreigners are immune to. Otherwise the US government could conscript them right into the US military, including the Army or Marine Corps infantry and send them into battle against their will and that of their government.

That is totally contrary to the historic tradition of the U.S. government and perhaps every government. The amendment’s jurisdiction refers to the full authority of the federal government over all male US citizens and male US immigrants, -not civil jurisdiction. Even foreign diplomats are under the civil jurisdiction of the United States and each individual state that they enter just like everyone else, -the difference being that they are not subject to prosecution or punishment for breaking the laws that they are required to obey. They have diplomatic immunity.

Once that falsely based policy was mandated for application to all babies born on US soil, then the nation was placed on a one-way street. From then, and going forward, that bastardized policy was the only policy allowed for all the INS officers of the government to implement. So even if someone with a brain took over the Attorney General’s office [now the Dept. of Homeland Security] and sought to rein in and cancel that policy, it would be like stopping a car going a hundred miles an hour (because it has no brakes) by using only down-shifting . The whine of the transmission and the stress placed on it would be analogous to the whine of the “open borders” radicals and the vitriol of those who espouse unlimited statutory & judicial authority on who is deemed to be a US citizen.

The blow-back would be enormous because it would not only impact the citizenship of those born today but also all of those born in the past and assumed to be citizens merely because their mother was temporarily or illegally in the United States though never under its jurisdiction, and likewise for the father.

For the federal government to reverse itself, even in order to right a stupid and baseless policy, would result in an enormous amount of damage to its reputation and all those who embraced or accepted that policy and sheepishly implemented it.
It would mean that they were all wrong, and their actions were in violation of the actual meaning of the 14th Amendment and the judicial rulings supporting its intended interpretation. Everyone would look like a fool, and even though they are fools and act foolishly, they all have elitist egos that they wouldn’t want to suffer because of being thoughtless willing cogs in an illegitimate machine.  So that being the case, it’s a situation for which there is no fix because no one has the courage to fix it.