The Presidency, and Natural Citizenship vs Legal Citizenship

There is a very good reason why so few Americans understand the issue of presidential eligibility, -with the reason being that they look at the issue from the wrong perspective. They look at it, research it, parse it, and draw conclusions about it based on a perspective oriented in law, which is their habitual approach. But the three words in the Constitution which serve to exclude all others from the presidency are not from the legal realm, -the realm in which people seek a legal answer as to what those words mean.
Article II, Sec. 1. “No person, except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President;…”

Those three words are from the natural realm, and so seeking their meaning in the wrong realm always leads to a wrong answer. To understand why they are from the natural realm one must understand the nature of natural societies. Natural societies inhabit all of the earth and even though most of them are human societies, many are animal societies. The realm of the law evolved over centuries and millennia but it exists within the pre-existing natural realm inhabited by animals and humans.
To understand the relationship of humans to their society and thus to their national membership, it is necessary to go back to the beginning. Actually, it is even better still to go back to before the beginning, -to a time before the world as we know it came to be. In that era all creatures lived in a world of chaos and unpredictability. Why? Because they might give birth to a creature of a completely different species! A bird’s egg might hatch and reveal a baby crocodile, or a fish, or a baby giant bug, or a dinosaur! And likewise for all of those creatures. You had to hatch the egg in order to find out what was in it.
With such a situation being the norm, the off-spring of parent couples were always rejected by the parents, -with the reaction: “you don’t belong to me! -and I don’t belong to you! Now get lost!” So parents did not necessarily have any connection to the off-spring that they produced, and the same was true of their off-spring toward them. There was a lack of a sense of natural belonging, of natural connection.

Then the beginning began and the Nature’s organizer decided that such a situation was unacceptable, and decreed that from henceforth, all off-spring would be identical to their parents. That sure ended the chaos and uncertainty that had reigned in the area of reproduction. But it required something to make it so. It required a LAW of Nature be imposed on all creation, an immutable, universal, unchanging law that was true 100% of the time in all reproduction. Heck, even the word “reproduction” speaks of the fact of that law.

No one disputes that, but what they might overlook is the fact that a secondary law accompanies that primary law. It is not secondary in importance, -only in appearance since it is the effect of the first law’s cause. That second law is the law of belonging.
It is a law felt by almost every mother that ever lived. Whereas before the beginning, a mother might look at her off-spring and say: “You do not belong to me!” But after the creation of the first law, almost all mothers would look at their off-spring and think or feel: “You are mine. You belong to me ‘cause you came from me and are just like me.” And as time passed, a bond would grow between them and they would, in a subjective sense, belong to each other.

That illustrates the law of belonging, and it does not end at the mother-child level, but is enlarged by others within the same circle as the mother, including the father, the grandparents, the nieces and nephews, the aunts and uncles, and the cousins. They are all connected by both natural and legal connections; i.e.; by blood and marriage. The greater family is commonly known as a clan. One is born into a clan and belong to it for life, and perpetuate it by having children of one’s own.

Two or more clans may live in union and harmony as did the clans that constituted the tribes of the Native Americans, as well as the tribes of the children of Jacob, otherwise known as “Israel”. There were twelve of them and they lived in Egypt until liberated by Moses. Later they lived in the land today named after them. They all had a family identity, a clan identity, a tribal identity, and a national identify. Membership meant membership at all levels.
Thus family membership also meant national membership. That is similar to the history of the Japanese people, and to a large extent, the Korean people. Under a monarchy, such familial and tribal, and national membership make one a natural “subject” of the monarch (born in subjection to his supreme authority).

In a democratic republic, such national membership is known as “citizenship”, and it is the same bond of belonging (but extended) that exists at the family level and upward. It is a natural connection by blood relationship, -being the same as the parents and belonging to all of the same groups that the parents belong to, including the “citizen” group.
Those who do not belong to those groups are outsiders, while all those who do are insiders. One cannot change what they were born as, but one can join a group to which they were not born and therefore do not naturally belong. That is because the insiders allow it.

In a natural group, that permission may be unspoken, but if the permission of the chief is required, it must be spoken or officially indicated. In advanced groups, that permission must be written and certified or is given as mandated by law by fulfilling certain requirements. With such requirements met, one becomes a new member of the national group, aka; a new “citizen”.

But what kind of citizen? That is an impolite question to ask. It implies something odious to fundamental American organic law which espouses the foundational view that all citizens are ~EQUAL~!
Rich or poor, educated or uneducated, respected or resented, noble or commoner…. No, wait! Scratch that last one. The Americans absolutely rejected all of the trappings of nobility and aristocracy because such status came with the inherent notion that all people are NOT created equal. Some are superior to others and should be treated with greater respect and opportunity.

The Americans had had a belly full of such arrogant attitude and rejected, banned, and abolished all titles and privileges of the elites of British society. All Americans were EQUAL! No man was another freeman’s superior as a citizen.
Could an outsider become a member of such a nation even though he was already a member of another nation? Well, he could not become a natural member, as in a natural citizen via the natural way, but he could become a pseudo-natural citizen via a pretense known as “legal fiction”.

By the fiction of transforming an outsider into an insider one could join the American group and be equal to all of the natives born of Americans, but there was a serious process that one had to complete first, and it included several years of residency, learning the American ways, and renouncing their current and previous allegiance to their own natural nation into which they were born. They were, in a very real sense, permanently divorcing their own country and its monarch and marrying America as their new and only country and home.

By that oath, giving their word of honor before God and Government, they died to their old national bond of belonging and allegiance and put on a new robe of national identity. But in fact it was more than merely putting on a new robe of identity. It was by legal fiction a transmogrification into a new natural citizen almost as if born of citizens.
By that process of switching and ditching national identities, they were natural-ized into new natural citizens of the United States.

But since they were not born as natural citizens they therefore were not “natural born citizens” and thus were excluded from the one and only thing in America off-limits to them, the U.S. Presidency.

In Great Britain when a foreigner became naturalized by act of Parliament, and thereby become a legal subject of the Crown and possessor of all rights and protections of the natural subjects of his majesty, he was henceforth considered for all intent and purposes to be a “natural-born subject” per the legal fiction of the realm which called all full subjects by that label.

But that privileged position did not permit him all of the privileges of a true natural subject by birth. That is because of the dictates of national security. Since he was naturally an outsider by birth, he could not be entrusted with the highest levels of national secrets (the privy council) or top command of military forces. He was a “natural-born subject” but not a natural born subject. They are not the same. Here’s a similar dichotomy to help understand the difference:

An American man wants to do his adopted sister an important favor but it requires him to perpetrate a pretense. His adopted sister was adopted from a foreign nation and she is homesick and wants to see the sister that she had to leave behind. So let’s say he, the “brother”, travels to her country and marries her sister in order to secure permission for her to enter the United States. They legally “got married” in her country, which is recognized by the United States, so they are man and wife, legally.
But legally is one thing, reality is another. They never spend a night together or ever have any matrimonial relationship. So are they really “married”? Or only legally married? In such a situation they are legally married but not actually married because of what marriage actually is. Even judges recognize unmarried “common law marriage” relationships as being real and thus adjudicatable. So labels are one thing but reality is another, sometimes.

What all of this is leading to is the fact that in America, the words: “natural born citizen” were not derived from nor related to the British legal-fiction term: “natural-born subject” which was from the legal realm while the American term was from the natural realm, -normal English words with their common meaning.

That is evidenced by the fact that all naturalized foreigners in Britain were considered to be “natural-born subjects”, but zero naturalized foreigners in America were considered to be natural born citizens. In America, those words were not a legal term of art or artifice but were just common language words meaning a natural citizen by birth.

“By birth” is in contrast to “at birth” which is a contrived, capricious, artificial criterion of legal policy or law. Citizenship by birth conveys intrinsic, immutable, inviolate, indelible citizenship, while citizenship “at birth” provides only circumstantial citizenship by legal permission of the insiders who elect representatives who pass laws that allow outsiders and their children to become Americans. The circumstances of “at birth” citizenship are timing and location, neither of which have any connection to natural belonging and natural citizenship.
The timing of circumstantial citizenship is from or at birth, although it could just as easily be designated as at one year after birth, or ten years, or at 18 or 21 years of age. The location circumstance is one of the mother being present at the moment of birth within the borders of the United States. Neither birth location nor timing of the attachment of citizenship have any connection whatsoever with natural belonging and natural national membership.

Another illustrative analogy explaining the truth about the American term for presidential eligibility is one related to marital status.
Imagine a single women looking for a serious American patriot as a potential husband and father. To find such a man she visits a local watering hole or coffee shop where she finds various men with various backgrounds.
One man has a ring on his finger indicating that he is already in a lifelong relationship. That relationship is akin to that of a foreign man who is married to his foreign nation, government, and society.
Another man has a tan line where a wedding ring was once located. He is akin to a foreigner who divorced his country and became a naturalized citizen of the United States. She isn’t interested in him because he would come with foreign baggage and thus would not be 100% American through and through.

Another man is single but also comes with a lot of baggage because he was in a long-term relationship in his younger years. He is akin to the native-born child of foreigners, -a child steeped in the bond of his parents to their homeland. Or it might be their bond to their alien religion which rejects the sovereignty of the American people, law, and government.
He might even have been raised in their foreign land, acculturated with their foreign culture and values, -values hostile to American values of liberty, equality, and individuality.
She can’t really know him because of the actual or possible foreign baggage that he carries inside. He was “a citizen at birth” but he was not a natural citizen by birth because he was not born of and raised by American parents.
He is not a natural American. He is a common law, 14th Amendment, legal citizen whose citizenship is purely a result of legal permission. Such permission granted by law is impermanent, rescindable, and nullifiable via a rescinding constitutional amendment. Just like prohibition was rescinded.

But natural citizenship cannot be rescinded because it is not a result of law or permission. It is the result of bloodline connection. No natural citizen in America, and probably the free world, has ever had his or her citizenship rescinded by government because (like one’s own children) they cannot be truly disowned since they were not “made” citizens (adopted) by law. They were conceived and born as natural members of the society and nation of their parents.

The final man she finds is single, never married, divorced or entangled in any relationship. He is akin to a natural American citizen who only has American genes since both of his parents were Americans when he was born. He is a natural member of their society and nation, having no foreign baggage whatsoever. He can be entrusted to wield the power of the Commander-in-Chief on behalf of the nation because he is free of any relationship to any other nation, and thus free of any actual or possible devotion, allegiance, or obedience to any foreign power.

~     ~     ~

Natural national membership (aka: citizenship) is not dependent on any outward circumstance. It is an integral element of the fabric of your being from conception. It is an intrinsic identity at the most primal level, the level of one’s sociological DNA. It is an unalienable right with which one is conceived and not determined by any qualifier of birth place or birth timing.
It is not a circumstantial right, -not a right with external qualifiers like a driver’s license. It is not dependent on borders or law but on blood alone. It could be called blood citizenship, as apposed to birth-place or borders-based citizenship (which is just another form of legal citizenship, -no different from statutory citizenship by permission).
Natural citizenship does not require judicial permission, bureaucratic authority, statutory law, nor any constitutional amendment because it is via an immutable law of the nature of all living things. Natural membership is an innate consequence of pro-creation by parents with the same national identity or membership, -an element of the fabric of life governing all socially-oriented forms of life, whether in America or elsewhere, whether on Earth or elsewhere. It is universal throughout the galaxy and all of the other galaxies in the entire cosmos.

One’s primal identifier is the mold from which they were made, -not the inconsequential, circumstantial, insignificant factor of the location where they exited the womb. Birth location is irrelevant to true identity at every level; ancestral, social, religious, genetic, legal, and national.

Every American couple that reproduces will produce an heir to their place in the world, an heir to their identity, an heir to their family and national membership.
That is an unalienable right of American citizenship and is more immutable than all of the laws of the nation combined. Opinions are as dust in comparison, so consulting what someone or some court thought or said about who is a natural citizen by birth usually devolves into an exercise in errant logic, distortion of fact, false presumptions, and the ignoring of reality and history.
But the truth is plain and simple and it is that the truth is based solely on a natural principle of belonging, -and that invisible principle underlies all of the foundations of the American republic (and every other nation as well). And that is because we are not the property of the government, but instead, it belongs to us, -and we belong to each other as a group that forms a country which is organized as a nation based on law and order. We are the sovereign owners of ourselves, our country (America) and our nation (the United States) and every child that we as American parents bring into the world inherits that ownership from us. Just as royalty gives birth to royalty, so Americans give birth to Americans.

~     ~     ~     ~     ~

“Ted Cruz relies on 8USC1401(g) for US citizenship to run for US President, but 8USC1452(a) says that that makes him a derived naturalized citizen, and thus he is Article 2 ineligible for the US Presidency. TED CRUZ IS A NATURALIZED CITIZEN AT BIRTH and ineligible to be President or VP.”

The actual truth is deeper than that. It goes one level lower. The statute mentions an American parent and an alien parent. As soon as you leave that specific context, the rules change but you are not aware of that fact because it goes unstated.
The rule for hybrid children (US + alien) is that citizenship is provisional by the permission and requirements of Congress.
The rule for American children is that citizenship is natural, and is passed from an American father and mother to their child by the unalienable RIGHT of citizenship by DESCENT. No permission of Congress is required because natural national membership (citizenship) is a primal right and not conferred by government, and may even be antecedent to government.

The statute mentions “alien” parent but actually means “foreign citizen” parent in the unique context of presidential eligibility. There is a difference. All foreign citizens are aliens when inside the U.S., but not all aliens are foreign citizens. Some are stateless persons with no nationality. Rafael Cruz was such a person when his son was born, and remained so until he became a Canadian citizen.

He had no legal, moral, or philosophical connection to the communist dictatorship of Fidel Castro and his socialist constitution. He was stateless because his nation ceased to exist, being replaced by another.
As such, he had no foreign citizenship, allegiance, loyalty, or duty toward the new nation: the People’s Republic of Cuba.
As such, he imparted no foreign alienage or citizenship to his son, with neither of them being subject to Fidel and his government.
As such, he was politically invisible in the nationality genes that his son inherited, being born as a sort of albino American natural citizen by birth, lacking an American-citizen father but not having a foreign-citizen father either.
As such, it is improper to to label him as ineligible to serve as President since he falls outside of the parameters of one who is ineligible, i.e.. having foreign alienage via a foreign citizen parent).
Rubio, on the other hand, is an alien-born common law 14th amendment citizen and born without any natural connection to America and the United States.

By Adrien Nash ~ March 2016
http://obama–nation.com

~As a 5-page, two column Adobe PDF document: The Presidency, and Natural Citizenship vs Legal Citizenship

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 95 other followers