14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness

The definition of “natural born” comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States” at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question…If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?

Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. George’s parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was “jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” (the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romney’s status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His “exclusive” allegiance at birth was to the United States.

This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 217: For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.

Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our country’s basic foundation, the family as “One” standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become “One” in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that “One” union.

Jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.

The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others are aliens in the eyes of the law of the US Constitution.

Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdf’s. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

About these ads

2 thoughts on “14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness

  1. slcraig April 10, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    Outstanding addition to your body of work.

    The inclusion of the Romney example, as well as the situation of non-diplomatic corps service personnel, does re-raise an issue that the 1790 naturalization Act attempted to cure.

    It may be that they thought they cured the dangers of ‘deeming’ a person born abroad as an NBC with the exclusionary language of; “…Provided, citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….”

    By the numbers and circumstances, without that language, such a male child ‘deemed’ an NBC could reside abroad until marrying a ‘traveling’ U.S.Citizen and give birth to a 2nd generation NBC born abroad without ever stepping foot on U.S.soil.

    But the larger issue created by the 1795 repeal is that “jus soli” was established as an inviolable circumstance of NBC along with natural parents who are citizens.

    However, the proposition that allegiance to the Constitution is and should be the central and determining consideration is what has long been overlooked in all of the debates and discussions.

    Given that the Federal Zone was the extent of soil of the Federal Government I do not feel that it is a reach to posit that the Constitution, and allegiance to it, should be considered the “jus soli” for the purposes of determining conformity to the needs of being a Constitutional natural born Citizen.

    But given that currently the is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, perhaps it would be best to 1st obtain a Declaratory Statement/Judgment from the Supreme Court before considering any “enlargements” along the lines of the 1st Congress.

    ed. There will be no ruling from SCOTUS unless one of the states get their eligibility laws passed before 2012 and even then, the Obama Admin will challenge it in court. And mark my words, Obama & Holder will fight it. As far as “jus soli”. I agree that a child remaining in a foreign cuntry until they are of age of consent poses a problem. But as of yet, I have been unable to find anything other than the fact that the child must be a resident in the US 5 years prior to their coming of age so that there is no question as to thier loyalty the the US Constitution. IOW, their parents must make sure the child’s citizenship was truly US citizenship established at birth. If the child remained on foreign soil until the age of consent and did nothing to establish that US citizenship by that time, then they are deemed to have tacitly consented to renounce it and to have taken allegiance with the foreign nation. But I say this with extreme caution. This only pertains to nations with true “jus sanguinis” citizenship laws that did not recognize the child as one of their own at anytime such as Panama who gives special privileges to those born on thier soil. There can be no tacit consent “jus soli” citizenship at the coming of age as there was for the children of the railroad/canal zone civilian workers should they wish to claim it. They are either true aliens at birth or not, there can be no grey areas. Linda

  2. Andra February 6, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    I just could not depart your site before suggesting that I extremely enjoyed the standard info an individual
    supply on your visitors? Is going to be again regularly in order to check out new posts

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: