Exposing the Lie of Native-born Natural Citizenship

The Question of Tulsi Gabbard’s Eligibility to serve in Congress


~a discussion thread from Facebook in response to https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/07/10/the-tulsi-gabbard-house-eligibility-question/

Adrien Nash Allow me to clarify a few points. Through her American mother, she was born with citizenship, which may, or may not have been natural citizenship. That depends on her grandfather and how he treated the residency status of his Samoa-born son. If he, her father, never lived in the United States and she was not born in the United States then no citizenship was passed to her through her father.

If he had lived in the United States for the requisite amount of years before turning 18 years old (five I believe) then he would have had his provisional citizenship converted into permanent citizenship, -just as was the case with Obama.
With permanent citizenship he would have passed his citizenship to his daughter, and with an American mother added, Gabbi’s citizenship would not have been merely statutory citizenship but would have been natural citizenship via having been born of American citizen parents, making her a natural born citizen.

If her grandfather was a naturalized citizen who did not become a ‘natural-ized’ citizen until after her father was born in Samoa, then her father was not a common law, 14th Amendment citizen at birth for lack of having been born within the United States. The naturalization of the grandfather, if it happened in Samoa (assuming that is even possible), would have also naturalized his minor son, in which case he would have been a citizen when she was born.

But, per original US (first Congress) and British law, if her father never lived in the United States then he could not pass his citizenship on to his children in Samoa because he would have actually been a Samoan in every other sense than ‘legal inheritance’. In that case she would have been born under foreign-birth statutory law (only one American parent) and would not be a natural citizen nor ever eligible to serve as President.

Robert Christopher Laity:
Simply Stated, Gabbard was not born IN the United States. A natural born citizen is one born IN the United States to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves (Minor v Happersett,USSCt.) Gabbard was born in American Samoa. That is not a fully incorporated territory of the U.S. She is not eligible to be President or VP.

““A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized,…”
That statement clearly indicates that children of citizens who are born outside US Territory, who gain their citizenship by Congressional statute are naturalized. In other words, simply having citizen parents isn’t enough to make a natural born citizen!

Adrien Nash:
Everyone who reads that is automatically bamboozled by the false presumption that results from its outright ambiguity. Their minds fail to spot the inherent ambiguity, and so their thinking goes in only one direction, but that direction is a gigantic error of monumental proportions.
No one else has spotted and exposed that ambiguity and thus everyone is operating under the same delusion. Allow me to explain.

The words in themselves do not delineate the huge gulf between “children of citizens who are born outside US Territory” and ‘foreign-born children of an American father and mother’. The first statement is horribly ambiguous because it does not reveal if it is speaking of “citizens” in aggregate or citizen parents in individual marriages.
“Citizens” in aggregate includes SINGLE-CITIZEN MARRIAGES that generally would be American mothers and foreign fathers. ALL such children are naturalized at birth by statute because they are not born as natural citizens. Rather they are born as hybrids with dual citizenship which is by statute only, meaning LEGAL citizenship in two different countries.

In no nation is automatic citizenship-at-birth conveyed to nationality-hybrids except by force of law. No citizenship that is the result of the force of law is natural. It is purely and only legal citizenship. No legal citizen is a natural citizen nor eligible to serve as President.
Every citizen that has citizenship based on U.S. law is ineligible for the Presidency. The only ones eligible are those who have citizenship based on no law whatsoever. They are the 97% of the population who are the NATURAL CITIZENS of the nation.
Their citizenship is the inherent inherited natural membership in the national family of their parents.
It is above all law and no law or judge has power to nullify it, prevent it, or ignore it. That is why Congress has no authority to strip anyone of their American citizenship, -including those who gained it via “natural-ization” (except in cases of outright fraudulent intent and a lying oath).
They have been made into natural citizens via the American legal fiction known as natural-ization. They have become natural citizens in the eyes of the nation and possess EQUAL rights as those who actually were born as natural citizens.
We do not have two different tiers of citizens in America because we embrace the legal fiction of absolute equality of all citizens, including those who in reality are not equal to the natural citizens of the nation because of the alienage of their foreign upbringing, history, culture, relationships, education, etc.
The Supreme Court case of Afroim v Rush demolished the very long standing ‘authority’ of Congress to supposedly make laws governing the citizenship of naturalized citizens. 7-8 decades of law were thrown out with one knock-down ruling that stripped Congress of it unAmerican ‘right’ to create two separate classes of citizens, thereby strongly affirming the American legal fiction of equality of citizenship in every conceivable manner.  Natural-ized citizens from then on have been recognized as also being natural citizens just as if they had been born of citizens. That is the legal fiction that America operates under and yet it goes unmentioned and unacknowledge by legal ‘authorities’ because they are all ignorant of what the term “natural-ized” even means.

So, the phrase “foreign-born children of American citizens” is a meaningless phrase since it does not distinguish between two innately different classes of people; those born as political hybrids and those born as natural citizens to an American father and an American mother.

Bruce G. McKay:
“Natural citizens need no law granting them citizenship” – – Adrien Nash, I agree with that statement. The FACT of the matter is that children of US citizen parents who are born outside of incorporated US territory are NOT citizens unless there is a statutory law granting them citizenship. Such persons are generally covered by the statutes found in 8 USC §1401-1409.
Because their citizenship rests on statutory law, which finds its basis in Article I Clause 8 of the US Constitution, all such persons bear a citizenship that, Constitutionally, is considered to be that of a “naturalized” citizen.
Your continued insistence that people who don’t agree with you simply don’t understand what you’re saying is merely indicative that YOU don’t accept either the US Constitution, US Statutes or US Case Law as authoritative.

Unfortunately, with regards to the eligibility requirements for either President or Vice-President of the United States, the requirements in the “US Constitution”, not “Adrien Nash’s opinion”, is what determines whether someone is legitimately eligible for those offices.  You’ve yet to cite anything authoritative to support your opinion.

Adrien Nash:
You still fail to understand the absolute authority of your own language. You cannot assign meaning where none exists. English is the final authority, not me, not you, not law, not judges. What words mean is not in the hands of any of those things.
What the words of the Constitution mean is not determined by pundits, “legal authorities” nor judges. Words mean what they mean, such as:
A natural born human: One born of humans.
A natural born Eskimo: One born of Eskimos.
A natural born American: One born of Americans
A natural born citizen: One born of citizens. PERIOD.
A natural-ized citizen: One not born of citizens.

Regardless of whether anyone knows or accepts the fact behind what ‘natural’ means, reality still is what it is. Error can continue on for centuries and millennia but it cannot change that which is true.
A non-natural born human: One born of humans…off world???
A non-natural born McKay: one born of father McKay and mother McKay…but not under their jurisdiction…i.e. in a hospital, -not under their roof. Said child is an adopted child and its membership in the McKay family is solely due to the beneficence of law, not blood.
So you see….none of your children are really your own natural born children. They are all adopted, right? THAT is the logic that you are insisting on but have just not recognized before.

“The FACT of the matter is that children of US citizen parents who are born outside of incorporated US territory are NOT citizens”
What you do not recognize is the fact that that is NOT a fact. Even the US Code recognizes that fact, but you have been reading into it something that is not there, and not seeing what IS there.

Also, if you were to explore the hundreds of expositions that I’ve written on the subject, you would discover that I discovered an obscure reference in the INS Definitions section of the INS website to the terms: naturalized citizen, native born, and natural born citizen.

After I made that publicly known, and it was being discovered by people, the Deep State bastards removed it from the page it was on, breaking all of the links. After hours I located it at another URL page and shared that deception of the government.

After that they removed from the internet the entire “Definitions” section of the A.G. definitions of congressional mandates. It was nowhere to be found, until I found (on about the 12th page of worthless Google results) an abandoned posting of the entire lengthy Definitions file put up by some naturalized Chinese American citizen an entire decade earlier.
I copied it and reposted it on my blog. I do not know if it is still there. It might have been erased just like the evidence of the original INS pages were erased from the Internet Archive (the Wayback Machine).

Clearly, the Obama Deep State did not want anyone to know that there is a difference between a native-born citizen and a natural born citizen. Words have meaning, and they mean what they mean by the rules of the English language, not by what lawyers decide they can twist them to mean.

So, are you the natural born son of your parents? Or were you adopted at birth since your mother did not give birth on McKay soil? As an adopted son, are you ineligible to share in any inheritance that they bequeath to those native-born children born at home? Your native-born siblings have a leg up on you because by not being born at home you are therefore not related to them by blood, but only by law.

THAT is the ‘reality’ that you are defending. I will condemn that misunderstanding of reality as treasonous to our fundamental unalienable God-given RIGHT to pass on to our children the greatest thing that we posses, which is our natural American citizenship.

So you see, there is a HUGE conundrum regarding modern concepts about the very basis of citizenship. Is it a fundamental God-given right of those born of citizens, or is it merely a rescindable law-given privilege bestowed by Big Daddy Government? It is one or the other.

Be careful which one you choose, because if a child of yours is born in traffic just across the border, but his twin is born on the American side, then one is eligible to be President but his twin is not. That is the crazy-world you are defending.  How can you do that???