Bastardized Citizenship Tradition


At the time of the founding of the United States the concept of citizenship was muddied and confused by two hundred years of colonial Imperial domination.  A different principle of nationality status was attributed to the colonies than the one in practice for subjects and citizens of the Crown in Britain.  The Monarch and the aristocracy viewed the colonies as the property of the Empire as well as its inhabitants, with the result that they were not viewed as having the rights of British citizens since they were essentially property without any right to have representation to protect their interests.
In the new nation created in that world, the framers knew that the system was aberrant and bastardized by the jus soli principle of ownership which governed the nationality status of the peasant class.  They were aware that citizenship was an unalienable right of freemen, -passed from parents to children by right of descent, not something declared and enforced by the Lord of the Manor Estate on children of his perennially indebted bonded servants (peasant serfs) nor, on a grander scale, imposed by the King on all souls born within his domain.

Because of the bastardized origins of citizenship in the colonies of empires in the Western Hemisphere, and elsewhere across the globe, the principle of natural citizenship remains misunderstood by the United States government to this day because the system we follow is based on impressions in the minds of legislators and Supreme Court judges that are based on the colonial model, not the model that existed in Britain (and all civilized nations) for those who were freemen.

During the 19th Century, the United States executive branch held to the principle that inheritance of the citizenship of ones father was an unalienable right, and opposed all judicial rulings that based citizenship solely on location of birth.  But the government lost in the end at the turn of the 19th Century in the case of  a native-born son of Chinese immigrants, Wong Kim Ark.  The court ruled that the 14th Amendment was the law of the land, even in the case of children born to those from very alien cultures (who were assumed to still be loyal to their sovereign, -the Emperor of China).
That ruling, and subsequent rulings based on an over-simplified and distorted interpretation of the 14th Amendment resulted in the common misconception that American citizenship is a right automatically granted by the United States to any child born within our borders to any foreigner, -with some rare exceptions.  That impression in the minds of the American citizenry has led to the mistaken belief that any person born within the borders of the U.S. is eligible to be the President.
That is a subtle, but huge logic error based on the erroneous conflation of the status of being a native-born citizen with being a natural born citizen.  Not all natural born citizens are native born, and not all native born citizens are natural born.  Barack Obama is believe to be native born, but that does not make him natural born because he did not inherit American citizenship by descent, by blood, by inheritance from his mother AND his father, which is the required qualification of what is needed to be a natural born citizen.  Since he is not a natural born citizen he cannot be made to be eligible for the office of the President.

The Constitution’s first statement regarding the eligibility of citizens to be President states  in a clearly exclusionary manner, not who can be President, but who CANNOT  be President.  And it states plainly that “NO person…. except a natural born citizen…is eligible…”

Does the American public take their Constitution seriously?  Do they care that they elected a person who is not eligible to serve?  Well, they can’t care about something that they don’t even know about, something that is the best kept open secret in the nation.  Those who know won’t discuss it because the implications of a requisite response by Congress is very ugly.  In effect, the medicine is worse than the disease.  That is the Republicans excuse, but the Democrats have an additional one, which is obvious.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: