US citizenship is the most sought after commodity on the market today. Yes, you read correctly, “commodity”.
Where else in the world can one go and be paid to retire, living off of other people’s property, when they have no work history? Where else can one go to have a baby and then, in the name of that baby, reap the property of those they have no loyalty or allegiance to? Where else in the world can one enter illegally and not be subject to the laws thereof?
Why the good ole’ US of Despotism of course!
The doctrine of old, that is still lawful doctrine as far as I know, is that a child can not be held responsible for the actions of the parents so long as that child is a minor. But when that child reaches the age of majority, the age of reason and knowledge of the law, the child themself becomes responsible to make sure they are in legal good standing. I, myself personally, don’t know one person who would deny a child brought here illegally or birthed here illegally, the right to citizenship if that child, upon reaching legal age of 18, stands on moral ground and takes the proper legal action to correct the indiscretion placed upon them by their parents to becoime legal and law abiding members of our society. This is the doctrine of all moral societies from the beginning of time, that every member of that society be bound to the same standard in all law. No classification of race or ethnicity required. We are all but of one race, the human race, in the eyes of a constitutionally bound & blindfolded justice system.
You ask then, just how did we get to where we are today when there are so many laws that pit one race against another & one ethnicity against another? Through judicial activism & greedy immoral citizens & non-citizens who found out they could vote themselves a paycheck via personal & corporate government welfare by voting in representatives that support everything but common sense, self-reliance & self-responsibility.
So let’s begin the lesson on the 14th. I’ll take it slow for those that are new to the issue and for those that have been entrenched with me in it for years, but still haven’t quite grasped this oh so simple concept.
Rule #1: Constitutions are not made to be complicated. They are written so that even the most common & uneducated citizen would be able to read and understand what is written so that they are able to obey the law without having to hire a lawyer every time they need to partake in society either personally or commercially. This is where I lose most of the lawyers as those of high education can’t seem to grapple with the law unless they make a complicated mess of it in their minds.
Rule #2: Every word or phrase, every jot or tittle in a Constitution is to have but one meaning when it is context pertains to a single subject matter such as the 14th Amendment. It’s subject matter is US citizenship, thus all words & phrases pertain to citizenship, how it is obtained, and what is required to obtain it …IN THAT ORDER!
But, before we explicitly break down the 14th, let’s go back to “the beginning” and see how US citizenship morphed from the days of old subjectship under feudal British monarchial rule to rule of law under a nation of sovereign citizens.
The year was 1775, oppression was abundant on this land of the freeman, each state a separate sovereign under the British crown, yet also under their own local colonial jurisdictional rule. Some of the colonies formed by the Brits, while others were formed by freemen of other nations who were later conquered and taken over by the Brits. The laws of these great colonies were as vast & nonconforming as the subjects that dwelt in them.
By July 4, 1776 all the colonies had personally declared their independence from Great Britain. The July 4th Declaration was merely a formal declaration that all the colonies now stood in solidarity with one another in order to break the chains of oppression that had been cast down upon them by their loving ruler. They adopted a Confederate Constitution, went to war & won. But soon, they realized that unless they united completely under a federal constitution, all they had fought for would be lost because after the war, they all went back to their individual states with laws still as vast & nonconforming as before. They soon found themselves pitted against each other with the ruler they had just defeated waiting in the wings to swoop in and conquer them once again.
One of the big debates they had was over citizenship. Just who were the members of this new Republic called the United States of America? The north wanted to abolish slavery right off the bat, but the slave states would have none of it, threatening to break away from the union. In a very wise decision, it was adopted that after a certain date, the slave trade would see a permanent end. In another very wise decision, the 3/5ths clause, the slaves states were not allowed full representation in the US Congress unless they freed all their slaves. Oh they tried to buck the 3/5ths clause, but the abolition states insisted that if the slave states wanted representation for what they called property, then the abolition states could also count all their property(furniture) for representation purposes. Well, very aware of the abundance of wealth the abolition states held over the slave states, it didn’t take long for the slave states to concede and adopt the 3/5th clause put forth by the representatives of the abolition states. There was also no talk of sex for at that time it was one household, one vote whether it be a woman or a man at the head of that household. A doctrine I whole heartily believe we should return to. And in many states, color did not factor into the equation. Black & white stood side by side in the voting line.
This is how a representative government works. The head of the household represents the house as a whole. The house as a whole elects representatives for local, state, US House & presidential electoral college members. The electoral college members represent the state as a whole in the presidential election and cast their vote for the candidate that best represents their state as a whole. Then last but not least we have the states who represent the body of the state as a whole and they were to elect the persons to represent the state in the US Senate. That is until it was usurped by liberals on both sides of the aisle.
But I digress. Back to citizenship.
Immediately after the Declaration of July 4, 1776, the states began repealing old feudal law & replacing it with the Laws of Nature & of Nature’s God as declared in the Declaration of Independence & reiterated in the Articles of Confederation.
Virginia, a colony with the deepest ties to Great Britain finalized their change in 1779 under the governorship of Thomas Jefferson.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
No longer did Virginia recognize British feudal law of subjectship as a definition as to who its members were. The only new members born into the state had to be born to parents who were already members of that state. These were & are the natural born. All others being aliens must be naturalized according to the laws of the state. The majority of the states followed suit, many adding religious requirements that were totally legal under the Articles of Confederation. On the other hand, a few states held fast to the feudal definition of subjectship, the state as the master & the individual as the subject slave. Quite repulsive isn’t it, to think that they fought a bloody war only to keep the members of their own society under the same legal oppression they had fought against.
Moving along, we come to 1790 and the passing of the 1st naturalization & immigration laws under the new Constitution of the Republic of these United States. This law held that all children born to American parents, regardless of soil of birth were natural born citizens. All others were aliens who were afforded the opportunity to become naturalized citizens, either at the time of their parents naturalization or upon their own accord at the age of 21. But the language was ambiguous at best. In 1795, the natural born language was repealed as it pertained to children born to US citizens abroad, however the language for children born to aliens remained intact.
In 1802 congress revisited the naturalization laws in order to correct abuses that had taken place under the previous administration. The Act of 1802 repealed all previous naturalization Acts and in their place, stated:
An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155
SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States
So, let’s break this down for those that are blinded easily by the chaff that hides the meat of the grain.
parents…united under one allegiance, upon marriage, international law & US state & national law recognized that the wife automatically became a citizen of the husbands country and the husband was the legal representative for the entire family.
the children…those born to alien/foreign parents on American soil
who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject(naturalized citizenship) by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof(laws of the state under the Articles of Confederation) … this refers to the feudal law of subjectship which at birth, naturalized the child of a foreigner and makes that child a subject slave of the state from the moment of birth, regardless of the parents wishes
being under the age of 21 at the time of their parents being naturalized…still a minor and under the authority & protection of the parents
admitted to the rights of citizenship if dwelling in the United States…they could only claim US citizenship if living in the US proper under the authority & protection of their parents who were living in the US & who had become US citizens
In other words, what we have here is the federal government stating in 1802, in no uncertain terms, that birth in this country is not the prerequisite to citizenship. It is the allegiance of the parents, the adults who are the guardians & protectors of the child, and unless the adult parents become citizens, the child has no other option than to try to obtain it at the age of 21. For those whose parents never did obtain US citizenship, the process was made easier and the waiting period was waved as long as the child had lived in and was educated in the US consistently for a certain period of time prior to their coming to the age of 21.
I have found no better voice to this than that of a Mr Saunders of the 28th Congress during debate on naturalization that finally ended with the above law being upheld:
28th Congress, 2nd Session
MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION
First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.
It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States
And please don’t misquote me. This does in no way pertain to children born to parents after the parents are naturalized, for at that time, the child is legally born to citizen parents and thus is a true natural born citizen. One born with a complete & undivided allegiance to the United States of America under the color of the law.
So, thus far, the federal government has recognized but 2 paths to US citizenship, birth according to the laws of nature which produce the natural born citizens and the rest, regardless of place of birth, fall under the statute laws of immigration & naturalization. However, let’s move forward and see if it stuck.
In 1859, naturalized US Americans were still being held unlawfully in the countries of their birth so President Buchanan had his Dept of Justice, Attorney General draft a legal OP that was published nationwide and sent out to all embassies across the globe. The US Embassies then forwarded this legal memorandum to all foreign governments, declaring once again, the laws of citizenship of the United States, both at birth & naturalization.
“The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”
“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”
This OP was still being cited by Harvard law as precedent to the definition of US citizenship when Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah was born.
This OP was also the legal document used to draft the 1866 Civil Rights Act that was ratified as the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of these United States in 1868. It is the legal document for the sister Act to the 14th Amendment which is the Expatriation Act of 1868, passed on July 27, 1868, immediately following the ratification of the 14th in order to finally & forever proclaim the US doctrine of a single allegiance to the US, either at birth or naturalization. It is the legal meat & the teeth to the oath of allegiance & renunciation all naturalized citizens must take and it is the legal meat & teeth that the US State Dept uses to protect its citizens abroad.
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.
No dual allegiance allowed. It is hereby declared inconsistent with our form of government and is a bain to the keeping of public peace. One nation, one people under one allegiance to, one Supreme Law, the Constitution of the United States.
OK, now that we have traced the history and found out that nothing had changed regarding children born to aliens on US soil since the time of the adoption of the US Constitution to the ratification of the 14th, we can now return to the 14th. Using the precedent set forth in all previous legislation pertaining to US citizenship and the legal document that gave it its force that was cited & upheld by the Supreme Court in both the Minor & Elk cases, let’s see what the paths to US citizenship are? Are there really only 2? YES!
All persons … Chief Justice Waite in 1874:
The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”
born or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … again Chief Justice Waite in 1874:
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
Then 10 yrs later Gray upholds the ruling of the court written by Chief Justice Waite as it pertains to the paths to Us citizenship as it stands under the 14th Amendment:
The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
So, the 14th defines persons as either born or naturalized. Then we take the next step to see which path they can legally gain citizenship thru by using the “subject to the jurisdiction” rule as defined by Congress & the courts since 1790; and we see that according to the 14th Amendment, the only ones who attain US citizenship via either path are those that have always had but one exclusive allegiance to the US since birth, the natural born, or those that formally & personally(individually) declared their one exclusive allegiance the the US upon naturalization.
It’s all right there folks. Both Supreme Court justices, both in the deciding opinions of the court citing the same legal precedent specifically sent forth by the US Congress in 1802 and reiterated in 1845 and finally by the Buchanan Admin OP in 1859 which became the legal document that formed the 14th Amendment, that thusly led to the constitutionality of citizenship as defined by 14th being upheld by the Supreme Court. Two paths to US citizenship, birth via the Laws of Nature which produces the natural born citizens or naturalization by renouncing & swearing an oath of immediate & exculsive alliegiance to the Constitution fo the United States, neither the twix shall meet. One can not be born with allegiance to a foreign nation and claim natural born citizenship status later in life. The law does not suport it.
Thus finally I leave you with this historical evidence from the…Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization(1840-1950)
Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.
Yes, this is the reason Harvard was still citing the 1859 Buchanan OP when Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah was born. Obama was 1st & foremost a British subject at birth, just as his father was. This was the law recognized by all nations, that a child born in wedlock follows the nationality of the father, not the mother until such time as a divorce or an adoption may take place or upon the child reaching the age of 21. The only change in the 1950’s pertained to children born to single mothers abroad, NOT children born in wedlock.
Therefore, the crux of US citizenship is neither birth nor naturalization, it is allegiance to the US Constitution & the political system of the US federal government and to them ONLY! However, birth is the only path to which one can attain to the office of the presidency . The highest office of the land which holds the responsibility of enforcing the Law of the land, the US Constitution and on each & every inauguration day, the person elected to that office takes an oath swearing to do so and is suppose to have had but one allegiance from birth. Exclusive allegiance to the United States of America and the US Constitution. Without the law, we live under despotism & tyranny of a doctorial government. Without the enforcement of our citizenship laws as they are defined in the 14th Amendment, we become a land without sovereign borders and are doomed to destruction through economic redistribution of our private property that the despotic governments seizes from us without authority of the Law of the land, the US Constitution, to give to others who are not legally authorized to receive it.
So, Welcome to the United States of Despotism under the tyranny of an illegitimate president who got there by the politically elite of all ranks disregarding the law and yet these so-called conservative politician and pundit elitists are astonished at how many times the British-American-Indonesian has ignored it.
GO FIGURE! AMERICAN IGNORANCE IN ITS PRIME ON DISPLAY FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE & LAUGH AT! AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!
This is just a note to thank you for the outstanding work that you publish here. I am amazed at the effort and analysis you have put in to what you publish. I like your take on lawyers trying to complexify the Constitution.
You are very much appreciated in some quarters!
This essay is a treasury of truth, -truth that the violators of the Constitution wish to not be known. I shall have to study and remember it’s historical facts and integrate them into my own thinking and writing.
Allow me to argue a point that I believe legitimately disagrees with one of your points. About there only being two paths to citizenship, one by birth to citizens, the other by naturalization oath, it can’t be refuted that the SCOTUS interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Wong holds that it is U.S. policy to grant automatic naturalization at birth to children of legal immigrants since immigrants, as opposed to foreign visitors, are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore their naturalization does not involve them needing the naturalization of their parents to be considered U.S. citizens, though without it they cannot be deemed to be natural born citizens.
[ed.] The SCOTUS clearly defined who were the citizens in the Slaughter House case which is the SCOTUS case that upheld the 14th as being “infact” constituitional in its language. This decision was later upheld in Elk v Wilkins in which Gray wrote the deciding opinion himself and he quoted directly from the Slaughter House case. The entire court agreed and ruled that there were only 2 paths to citizenship in the US, birth or naturalization and the key ingredient is the clause of the 14th that states “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. This clause applies equally to birth as it does to naturalization and is why there is a comma “AFTER” birth or naturalization and “BEFORE” the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”. Had it meant something different for birth, the law would have read “All person born or, all person naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction”. But it doesn’t, the law clearly places both circumstances on equal footing. Therefore the ruling of the unanimous SCOTUS regarding this area that stated “SPECIFICALLY” that there are only 2 paths to citizenship is correct. If birthright citizenship is indeed the law, then it is by an Act of Congress, but alas, there is not law for the 1868 Expatriation Act is still valid law to this day and that law states “SPECIFICALLY” that the US Congress has never passed ANY law adopting ANY form of dual citizenship.
Now some argue that there is a “concept” of dual citizenship and I agree, but a “concept” is not law thus any citizenship that is aquired under the guise of some ficticious notion that Congress passed a law adopting dual citizenship is suspect at best depending on the birth and whether the parents were married and if so, if the father was a foreigner, then the child is also a foreigner. And thus the dumbing down of American citizenship in the name of progress for globalization. We’ll soon be a global nation with no borders unless our citizenship laws are put back in the 1-fold box they belong in and that box being…as the SCOTUS stated…one allegiance, to one nation either at birth or naturalization. PERIOD. Birthright citizenship has its founding in feudal law[jus corona] and the right of the king who is considered the only sovereign. Under our form of government the individual citizens are the sovereigns, thus the only way a child can be born a citizen is to be born of the blood of an already exiting citizen as a foreigner has no authority in the area of citizenship.
I also disagree on your interp of “subject to the jurisdiction”. According to the law of nations, every person regardless of status is subject to the laws of the land they are currently residing in with the exception of citizenship. This is universal law that has been in place from time immemorial in order to sustain peace and order throughout the globe. Only citizens are subject to the laws of citizenship. Only citizens are legal to vote to select their representatives. Therefore a foreigner breeds a foreigner and only a citizen breeds a citizen.[ed.]
One other disagreement is over the use of an improper choice of word in this statement that follows the discussion of the 14thAmendment: “the only ones who attain US citizenship via either path are those that have always had but one exclusive allegiance to the US since birth, the natural born,”
The “natural born” should be “the native born” because the natural born are not a part of any law ever passed except in regard to their mention in the presidential eligibility requirements. Those born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction include both those born to natives (the natural born citizens) and those born to foreigners and naturalized at birth, but the 14th Amendment is only meant to cover the later. They should never be described as being natural born because they were fathered by foreign men, or born to unmarried foreign women.
Do you agree?
[ed.] No, I do not agree. Natural refers to blood, native refers to soil. There was a time they were coequal terms, but that unfortunately that is not the case today due to the still soveregn tribal land within our borders which was the crux of the Elk v Wilkins case. The Declaration specifically states that the founders returned the nation back to “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. The laws of citizenship under Nature and of Nature’s God are specifically found in the bible which happens to be the most oft quoted book during the constitutional debates, both at the drafting and the ratification at the state levels. The bible is quite clear as to who are the natural increase and who are the naturalized/adopted. And while language often gets muddied and dumbed down over the centuries, the founders never considered the soil as the prominent factor in deciding who the citizenry is. It has always been by the blood as stated in the 1859 Att. Gen. OP published nationwide and which is the foundation language for the Civil Rights Act that was ratified as the 14th Amendment. In it they cite A2 ‘natural born’ and then use the term native in describing the citizenry using the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”. https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/ It’s not that cpomplicated, it just that legalese have a habit of making the most simplest of things utterly confusing.[regrards, ed.]
A.R. Nash http://obama–nation.
I perceive that we are brethren of the pen. You have authored much from a legal, constitutional perspective, and I from a natural law perspective. I believe we will mutually benefit by exploring each other’s writings.
This post got me thinking about the Constitution and inspired my latest treatise: Moses & The Half-Blood President
which I’ve uploaded to my blog here: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/half-blood-president