Citizen by Natural Law page 3

“That is the law, as I understand it at the present time.” – Senator Trumbull.
Please note the addendum belief “as I understand it”.  This reveals awareness of the very real possibility of misunderstanding. Lack of certainty was due to lack of one single unambiguous tradition or principle.  Since 99.99% of citizens were both native born and born to citizens, there naturally has been confusion as to which principle or fact was most controlling in determining why anyone in particular is a citizen.

“As a matter of law, does anyone deny…that a native born is a citizen, and a citizen by virtue of his birth alone?” – Senator Morril
Be careful when reading that statement to not make an automatic presumption that “birth alone” is not referring to birth itself but to the location of the spot on which one was born.  Birth is something which by any reckoning does not include any reference to where it takes place. It’s only connection to anything is to which mother it occurs to, and by extension, what citizenship she possesses which will be inherited automatically.

“A native born is a citizen…” is a statement that is fundamentally flawed due to lacking mention of the fact that native birth can be referring to two very different circumstances.  It’s too easy to forget the fact that citizenship is automatic for children of citizens, it is not dependent on location.  So while it is technically accurate to say that a native born is a citizen, it presents a false presumption that connects native birth with citizenship when native birth is irrelevant if the parents are citizens, but in the rare cases of birth to aliens, it is absolutely necessary.  AN

Natural law exists regardless of the existence of courts or societies or humanity itself.  And it has a political corollary regarding citizenship.  Citizenship that is natural does not need any court to recognize it because it is a fundamental element of the bedrock of all civilizations. Statutory law is needed and provided for those who lack natural citizenship, who need to be “natural”ized.  Common law draws not only on judicial decisions but on natural law which may or may not be codified in statutes.


Legal authorities made pronouncements and decisions based on the concepts that they held.  Those concepts had their roots in something, either it was common sense judgement, or historical law, religious law, or natural law. All of which are based on human judgements about what is right, moral, logical, and practical.  Common law evolved from such judgements of the courts and in applying it no reference was required as to which root(s) were most relied upon in making court rulings.  Any of those two forms of ancient law, or the analogous concepts of natural law would not be referred to when discussing common law except perhaps in opinions explaining judicial rulings.

In the real world words have literal meanings.  The idea of natural citizenship is not a concept derived from nor defined in any statutory US law or court ruling because it pre-dates them considerably, thus it was almost never a subject of discussion.  Only the eligibility of the President brought up the subject/concept.


“The jury instruction on alienage described, correctly, TWO types of “natural born United States citizen[s]”: a person “born in the United States,” and a person who is born to a United States citizen parent “if, before the birth of that person, [the] United States citizen parent of that person was physically present in the United States for ten (10) years, at least five (5) of which were after the citizen parent reached the age of fourteen (14).”

What an addled opinion, flat-out wrong but you pass it off as accurate?  Are you nuts?  There are no legal IFs in any description of a natural born citizen!!!!!!  You have ignorantly quoted an ignorant judge who confused statutory naturalization law (describing limitations on the conferrence of citizenship) with the class of citizenship which is above, beyond, beneath, whatever, all written laws regarding citizenship since all the written laws are written to cover the situations of aliens, that is, an alien parent (or parents) and their children.
Also, the quoted residency requirement is only in regard to children born abroad!

The statement that a person “born in the United States” is a “natural born United States citizen[s]” is a pure fantasy, an imaginary judicial definition.  The breath of the ignorance within and without the judicial system is astonishing.  That presumed definition cannot be found as a decided ruling ever given by any Supreme Court in our history.

“There has not been one case or statutory scheme which had rejected Jus Soli in favor of Jus Sanguinis.”
Conversely, there has not been one case or statutory scheme which had rejected Jus Sanguinis in favor of Jus Soli.  Jus Sanguinis has never been rejected because it is the most ancient and enduring basis of citizenship, -it continues to this day, while jus soli is only employed for the sake of providing equal treatment under the law for children of resident aliens who have adopted the United States as their permanent home.  It serves no other purpose except to Constitutionally affirm that native-born children of slaves are/were also US citizens.
Every opinion quoted reflects the simplistic fallacy that since 99.999% of persons born in the US are citizens, therefore it must be that they are citizens because they were born in the United States.  Such a widespread error in thinking influenced many an opinion and statement because there was no serious contemplation of the issue, nor the meaning of “natural born” regarding citizenship.


Naturalization law has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the citizenship of natural born citizens.  Their citizenship is not covered by any act of Congress except in regard to giving birth on foreign soil. And even in that case, it was mentioned not to establish a principle but merely to reaffirm what already was the accepted tradition of most, if not all, nations on earth.

It’s a distraction from natural citizenship to discuss Naturalization acts and jus soli vs jus sanguinis because those acts did not pertain to natural born citizens, but only to aliens and children of aliens.  So NO principle was rejected nor was any confirmed regarding the citizenship of 99.99% of U.S. newborns since they were not even covered by Naturalization law.
Under the 14th Amendment, jus soli was not affirmed as the sole principle upon which citizenship is based since citizenship via the 14th Amendment is dependent upon being subject to US jurisdiction, a condition meet by ALL natural born citizens, and ALL native born legal residents regardless of the nationality of their parents.  But its purpose was not to declare how citizenship is ascribed (jus soli vs jus sanguinis) but to merely state or declare the conditions that are true of all citizens and cannot be disputed or disregarded.
Those conditions are fulfilled differently by different groups.  Children of citizens fulfilled them naturally by their parents living in and giving birth within their own country, while children of aliens fulfill them by native birth and legal habitancy. The two are similar, but different since the nationality of the alien parents is not passed to their off-spring, while that of the citizen parents is.
But if the parents were not legal residents then their children were not citizens.  Citizens of foreign governments who work for those governments are not legal US residents because they are not domiciled here in any sort of permanent sense. They, and their fellow countrymen who are visiting the U.S., are considered to be aliens who are not subject to US jurisdiction, Therefore their children CANNOT constitutionally be U.S. citizens.


There was no standard definition of the phrase “natural born citizen, one didn’t exist in common law because it was not derived from common law, but pre-dates common law, having its origin in natural law.  It even pre-dates the concepts of natural law, pre-dating all law, British law, Roman law, Hebrew law, and Babylonian.  It dates back to the tribal age of mankind.  If you were born to a member of the tribe, then you were naturally a member also.  It didn’t matter where you were born.  In recent times, the same could be said about the Eskimos who were born on Arctic ice.  The off-spring were members of the tribe because of who they were born to, not because of where they were born.

“It is a commonplace that the traditional ways of transmitting and acquiring citizenship at birth are jus soli (rule of the soil) and jus sanguinis (rule of blood). In this country, the former is provided for by the Constitution, and the latter is provided for by the enactments of Congress.” US v. Marguet-Pillado, 560 F. 3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2009)

This statement needs to be parsed, as it contains easily overlooked truths and can be a misrepresentation of the full truth.   It’s reference to the Constitution is in regard to the 14th Amendment, which was not authored in reference to natural born citizens.

The key pivotal words are “transmitting” and “acquiring“.  Transmitting relates to the natural inheritance of citizenship from ones’ citizen parents.  Acquiring relates to gaining something one does not naturally have, that one is lacking.  Nothing in US law covers the principle of the transmission of citizenship of American parents to their children, except when birth is outside the United States, then it “is provided for by the enactments of Congress” based on jus sanguinis.

For children of resident aliens, citizenship “is provided for by the Constitution” (the 14th Amendment) based on jus soli and subjection to US jurisdiction. But the 14th does not and needs not declare that natural born citizens are citizens only because of its wording. They weren’t the subject of its creation. Their citizenship needs no law to explain, or grant their citizenship since it is inalienable.  AN


You wrote: “Only a specific law can actually ‘transmit’ that citizen’s rights. Every form of United States citizenship can only be acquired if transmitted by the Constitution or U.S.statutes.”
This statement is indicative of your cluelessness.  Your patriotic reverence of Law blinds you to a very simple truth, -as I wrote: “the 14th Amendment DOES NOT and NEEDS NOT declare that natural born citizens are citizens only as a result of its wording. They weren’t the subject of its creation. Their citizenship needs no law to explain, or grant them citizenship since it is inalienable.”  Citizenship-by-birth to citizens pre-dates the 14th Amendment and was not addressed by it.

I wrote: “Acquiring relates to gaining something one does not naturally have, that one is lacking. Nothing in US law covers the principle of the transmission of citizenship of American parents to their children, (EXCEPT when birth is outside the United States”.

Nowhere in US law is the subject of citizenship of the children of native-born citizens ever legislated or adjudicated, nor even covered in the Constitution.  ALL US law regarding citizenship is related to those born outside the US or born to those who were born outside the US.  They constituted a tiny fraction of the births on US soil when the nation was founded.  All the laws were written for them.
The wording of the 14th Amendment covers “all persons” in its declaration of citizenship, but it DOES NOT declare that they are citizens BECAUSE they are born here. It merely states that they are, -and if the parents are native-born citizens, then they are also citizens because their parents are citizens.  In your weird world, a child born in outer-space would have no citizenship.   AN


“John Quincy” wrote in WND forum:
[Most terms of the Constitution]” are readily understood and with their usual meaning.  Words should be interpreted with their usually meaning unless that meaning is unclear. The Constitution uses “subject”, “citizen”, and “natural born citizen”, and in each case the meaning is clear.

Each word of “natural born citizen” – individually or in combination – has generally understood meaning. There are no foreign terms, latin phrases, scientific terms, or anything else that is not readily understood with common intelligence.  You insist that “natural born citizen” is identical to “natural born subject”.

Should the word “citizen” somehow mean “subject” when in the context of “natural born citizen”? In the same context, should “natural” suddenly mean “native” when the meaning of each is plainly different? Perhaps “natural born citizen” really means “native born subject”… the possibilities are endless once the meaning of words are discarded.

4 Responses to Citizen by Natural Law page 3

  1. arnash says:

    Posted by John Quincy on Sep 08, 2011 18:13 WND Forums

    Natural law is the law of reason and rationality.
    We have acknowledged natural law, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, since
    the Founding, The Declaration of Independence. We have not given such high acknowledgement to England’s common law.

    Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution acknowledge English
    common law. Does ECL have some degree of influence? Yes, in form and style. And during the Articles of Confederation the content, to a degree, but this ended with the adoption
    of the Constitution. Natural law is the fundamental principle of our law, not English common law. It is the foundation of our positive law, the purpose of which is to secure our natural rights.
    “All are created equal with unalienable Rights, to secure these rights Governments are instituted” Natural law does not flow from the state, it exists prior to any government formed by man.

    I contend:
    A nation consists of citizens born from citizen parents.

    When a child is born is becomes a member of that family, tribe, and nation.

    No positive law is required, this is the normal natural due course of events untended

    by man-made law. These citizens are the natural born citizens of that nation.

    All other citizens of a nation are aliens who have joined the nation via naturalization,

    [positive law which defines the process of an alien becoming a citizen]. These citizens

    are not natural born.

    Natural born describes the naturally occurring phenomenon of citizens born of

    citizens. The condition is unalienable, immutable, and is immune from statute; it is a

    law of nature.

    You (PhoxarRed) reject this logic, not by finding an error of reason, but by citing Blackstone’s
    Commentaries on the Laws of England. You mistakenly rely on England’s common
    law, when natural law is the foundation of our law. While informative, his commentary
    deals with the common law of a feudal monarchy, -a common law which asserts the
    divine right of kings, and that all must be loyal to such “king”. Such common law
    abrogates our natural rights. The common law of a feudal monarchy is antithetical to the natural law foundation of our republic. It is repugnant.

    Your Blackstone cite in no way refutes the common sense description of natural born.
    Natural born describes the naturally occurring phenomenon of citizens born of citizens.

  2. arnash says:

    Reply to PhoxarRed by John Quincy

    Reason is objective. People can and do make errors in reasoning. That errors of reasoning are made does not diminish natural law. Mankind is fallible. Mankind can also be evil.
    For example, a recent post cited a Professor Bledsoe who attempted to justify
    slavery by claiming it to be based on natural law, “civil subjection is necessary to
    confer on them the enjoyment of natural rights”. This isn’t an error of reason, it is
    complete absence of reason. In order to exercise your natural right to liberty you
    must be deprived of your liberty. Anyone that buys that is either a liar or an imbecile.

    Does this invalidate natural law? No.Natural law is fundamental principle and underlies positive law. Murder is illegal. Why? Not only is murder prohibited by the Ten Commandments,
    reason tells us it must be so. Blackstone recognized this, “natural liberty consists
    properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless
    by the law of nature … For no man, that considers a moment, would wish to retain the
    absolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleases; the consequence of
    which is, that every other man would also have the same power; and then there would
    be no security to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life.”

  3. arnash says:

    “So is it your position that James Madison, who stated jus soli was the most certain
    form of determining loyalty and controlled [citizenship] in the U.S., didn’t understand the meaning of the Constitution he wrote? ”

    It’s my position that he spoke of that about which he wasn’t informed, and that the
    presumptions he held were transparently false. The Constitution does not touch on
    the origins of citizenship in the civilized world, which he apparently was ignorant
    about, and doesn’t prescribe how citizenship is obtained. The nature of citizenship
    was the one area of understanding that the colonists were blank on because of the
    unusual historical nature of their relationship to the Crown.

    The colonial view of citizenship was skewed by 200 years of colonial jus soli domination -giving the King ownership over all the colonies and all of their inhabitants. Americans were nothing more that owned property which was the fruit of his international estate, like cattle or serfs in his stable whose off-spring belonged to the owner of the domain. That type of “subject-ship” was aberrant and unlike citizenship in any civilized nation, including England itself, where both citizens and subjects had certain rights which had been secured over the centuries.

    Americans felt blessed to be Americans, but they mistakenly credited the accident of birth in America as being the reason for their citizenship, rather than the universal principle of being born to citizens, a principle they weren’t familiar with. The Divine-Right-of-Kings was the reason for such a distorted view.

    “the United States recognizes no U.S. jus sanguinis philosophy of citizenship inheritance.”

    By “United States” you mean people in authority, past and present, people under a mistaken “impression”, all of whom were wrong.

    The reason that “native birth” was shunned by the framers as a condition of Presidential eligibility was that non-citizens could also be native born and the President was not allowed to have any taint of foreignness about him. He was to be a 100% full-blooded American and that is why they used such strong exclusionary language; “NO person, except…”

    The common conflation of “native born” with “natural born” was due to the impression that they were virtual equivalents, and they were 99.99% of the time. But the framers were not allowing for any exceptions to be accepted so they excluded all who were not born to Americans. All those who conflate native with natural are deceived by the “impression” that they are indistinguishable, but they are distinguishable, just as a rare black sheep, while still a sheep, is distinguishable from the white sheep.

    American citizenship is the natural inheritance of children born to Americans abroad, and its inclusion in statutory law is not to make that so, but merely to eliminate any doubt as to the fact that it is so.. Read the statute and you’ll see that it is separate and different in nature from the delineations that precede it.

    “the United States recognizes no U.S. jus sanguinis philosophy of citizenship INHERITANCE.” By “United States” you mean people in authority, people under a mistaken/ false impression. AN

  4. arnash says:

    “Jus solis only suits a tyrannical world empire, not a constitutional republic. Those who rely on English jus solis are ignorant and require correction, as does the damage done to our law.”

    So true. Jus soli became the basis of citizenship in the colonies, even though it was not the basis in the mother county, nor in any other country. But its multi-centuries of influence determined the mindset of those who loved and embraced its simplicity, while failing to recognize that a greater historically ancient principle existed that had been understood by most nations on earth for millennia.
    But colonial subjects probably knew of clear exceptions to what they “understood” to be the rule. Those exceptions would be when mother-citizens from one colony happened to give birth within another colony that they were visiting . The children would not become citizens of the neighboring colony but would inherit the citizenship of their father.

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: