Revealed: The Constitutional Difference between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio

~of Donkeys, Zebras, Albinos, Antarctica and natural born citizens~

Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power… to establish an uniform rule of naturalization;…”

That was all that Congress could do regarding the assignment of citizenship, -to formulate a nation-wide rule by which a foreign man could be changed into a new “natural citizen” of his State (natural-izing him) via the process of the State and his own actions (registration and honestly speaking the transformative, life-changing oath of Renunciation & Allegiance).
It was the individual States and their individual naturalization rules that needed to be made “uniform”. The first naturalization act of Congress did that. The State Courts of Record then followed the new national uniform rule in their process of allowing foreign men to remake themselves into new State citizens and, as a collateral effect, into American (United States) citizens by extension.

But government does not “make” new citizens apart from a mass-naturalization proclamation such as that passed on behalf of the Amer-Asian Vietnamese children and their mothers and siblings who managed to escape from Vietnam, along with the other “boat people”. But that authority was not given to Congress by the Constitution. It was self-asserted by Congress out of “necessity”.

The natural status of being a natural member of one’s own group and society (via member parents) and a natural member of one’s own nation is not a privilege “bestowed” on one by government in order to make one that which they were in fact born already being.  No creature or object needs to be “made” that which it already is.

Government can no more “make” a natural citizen than it can make a natural eagle. Eagles make eagles and zebras make zebras just as citizens make citizens. For alpha-male zebras in a zebra herd to accept a donkey as a zebra, the donkey must first paint himself with zebra stripes, making himself into a faux, legal-fiction-natural zebra. Same with foreigners, and children of hybrid marriages involving two nations.

In our current political situation, Marco Rubio is not a faux natural zebra, but his parents were after they had become natural-ized. But if he had been born before that time, then he too would have taken on his parents faux-natural American political identity. Since he was born before they became Americans, he was born as a painted donkey who was accepted as a member of the zebra herd “as is” (as a common law 14th Amendment citizen).
But what is the rule of the herd? Only a true natural zebra is eligible to lead the herd. Certainly no member born as a donkey is eligible since such a one was not innately a natural member of the group by birth.

And what of Ted Cruz? Ted was not born of a donkey father and a zebra mother, but only of a zebra mother. How so? His father contributed no nationality to their son since he had none of his own to contribute. He was a man with a country but without a nation.
What’s the difference? A country is a land and its people. A nation is the people and their government. An “Indian nation” is not defined by land occupied. The country designation is secondary and can be splintered by the people and government fleeing the land, -as happened with the country & nation of Kuwait when it was invaded by the army of Saddam Hussein.The nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait, leaving it in the hands of the invading, looting army.

The father of Ted Cruz was of the country of Cuba but not of the nation of Castro’s Communist government and socialist constitution. Therefore he was not a citizen of such a nation nor subject to such a government. He was stateless, -not unlike Gypsies, or the Children of Israel after they left Egypt. They were no longer subjects of Pharaoh but had no country of their own yet, being desert nomads for forty years.

One could have labeled them as Egyptians since their forefathers had lived in Egypt for about four centuries, but they were not ethnically Egyptian. Similarly, Rafael Cruz Sr. was ethnically Cuban but not politically Cuban nor subject to the new Cuban revolutionary Communist government which overthrew his government. A similar dichotomy.
The consequence of having a stateless father was that all of Ted’s political or nationality “genes” came from his mother who had “American genes” only.
It is as if Ted was born as an albino zebra. Pure white. The black strips (representing the contribution of the father) were missing. Analogous to a virgin birth. You could say that he was a natural zebra but a very rare type; an abnormal natural born white zebra.

Such an albino is definitely a zebra just as Ted is definitely American, but to be non-eligible one must be something else also, namely something foreign, yet there is no foreign allegiance in Ted’s inherited political character since the only such character he inherited came from his mother. His father had no allegiance to Castro and his Communist government. His only allegiance was a theoretical allegiance to Canada after becoming a Canadian citizen after Ted was already living. So that had no effect on him at birth.

So the claim that Ted was “Canadian by birth” is absurd because it is profoundly ambiguous. Was he innately Canadian by birth? Was he born of Canadian blood? Did he have Canadian ancestors? Were his parents naturalized Canadian citizens at the time of his birth? They could not have been because the required residency was five years but Ted was born a least a year before eligibility.

Bear in mind that “Canadian by birth” is distinctly different from “Canadian by birth place”. The former is based on blood, while the latter is based on borders. So he was born of an American citizen and no other citizen.

It’s like a fertilized human egg. It is innately female by nature, containing an X chromosome, but to form a male human, the Y chromosome must be contributed by a male’s sperm which is programmed for maleness. A stateless father is like a sperm that contributes nothing to the egg’s gender character, -no Y chromosome of foreignness so the child is innately only that which the mother contributes.

Those whose view of the meaning of “natural born citizen” comes from anything other than the principle of natural membership hit a wall of confusion when confronted with the hypothetical situation of a Ted Cruz fathered by a native of Antarctica (none exist). Antarctica is not owned by any nation and has no sovereignty of its own. Such a native would belong to no state and no people other than the mother’s people and nation. Such a native father and such an unowned land can’t imbue a child with foreignness or alienage, being analogous to a political albino, or birth in outer space.

Neither by birth place nor parentage would such a child be foreign since the father would be a stateless person.  In the realm of citizenship he would be invisible.
An American mother of such a child would be the only parent to contribute national identity to their child. It would be 100% what she is since there is nothing else.

That is the sort of citizen that Ted Cruz is. Atypical, not contemplated by American law, the rarest of the rare. The naturalization statute regarding foreign birth to an American mother and a non-American father sees their child as a citizen by legal right -not by natural right or constitutional right.  It is a “right” bestowed by Congress to give American mothers the same right that American fathers had always had.

When the nation was founded, and for over a century afterward, no such language of two nationalities was used nor contemplated because the described circumstance was impossible.
All women of that era were identified by their husband’s nationality, not their father’s. If he was foreign, then so were they because they were what he was, legally, socially, religiously, and by surname.  No American husband had a foreign wife and no foreigner had an American wife.  Nationality within marriage was uniform, unitary, a single source, undivided.  In fact, in the naturalization act of 1907, American women who married a foreign man were openly identified as having lost their American citizenship.  (That was the law for 15 years.)

But the current naturalization language, and all those deceived by it, state a fact that is innately erroneous and yet not an outright falsehood. It uses foggy language, including: “children born aboard of American parents…”.
No one in the world can tell you exactly what that means because it means exactly nothing. Is it referring to only the children of American couples? -or to children of foreign parents and individual American “parents” in aggregate?
There is no answer given nor is the question even ever asked because it never enters the minds of people.
Since the difference determines who is eligible to be President and who is not, -no one in government dares to go there (it’s too touchy a subject), and so it is avoided completely.  Should a politician follow the obvious principle of natural law or support a position that is most politically expedient (and denies natural law)?

Are foreign-born children of American couples “natural born citizens” as our forefathers declared them to be in the first Congress?  If they are, then they are that because of American blood, and not American soil.  Blood or soil… blood or soil…jus soli or jus sanguinis?  It can’t be both.  It is one or the other.

If it is the other (soil…native-birth) that makes one a “natural” born citizen”, then that would make natural American children not born within U.S. borders aliens by birth, -not Americans by birth.  That would mean that they have no natural right whatsoever to be Americans, -to be members of their family’s national group, making them foreigners to their own parents and siblings.  Did the founding fathers concoct such an insane system for us?

They certainly did not, and that is seen in the first naturalization act (1790) which ordered that they be recognized as the natural born citizens that they were born as.  That meant that they were eligible to serve as President.  It also mentioned ~the right of citizenship by descent~.  That referred to the natural right of national membership based on blood inheritance.

That could not be allowed to stand because it destroyed the right of the alien-born in America to serve as President, i.e., the native-born children of foreigners, non-Americans, who had no natural right to citizenship much less to serve as the Commander-in-Chief.  So a whole lot of immigrant voters got Congress to drop that mention of “natural born citizen”, leaving its only other enacted mention in American history being that in the Constitution.

But this much is made clear in the government citizenship website prepared for the public; the vague reference to foreign-born children is in relationship to only “citizenship”, -not “natural born” status . Yet it states in emphatic terms that the foreign-born children of American couples are NOT naturalized, thereby making a distinction between them and those with a foreign parent.

Deduce your own deduction. Does that not mean that they are naturally natural citizens of the United States?  Since Congress can only “make” legal citizens via naturalization, that only leaves natural citizenship via the principle of natural membership.

by Adrien Nash Jan. 2016 obama–

In PDF format: The Constitutional Difference between Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio2


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers