Citizenship and Naturalization – From Colonial to United States to Ark

In the beginning there where the Thirteen Colonies. The citizens of these Colonies were British subjects. These subjects may have emigrated from Great Britain, emigrated from elsewhere, or have been born in these colonies.

Upon the Declaration of Independence each of the colonies became separate independent sovereign states, and these British subjects became American Citizens.

Each of these sovereign states wrote constitutions and instituted a new frame of Government different from their colonial government.

To prevent anarchy, many states adopted portions of English common law except where it conflicted with their Constitution or laws.

Each sovereign state added new citizens by citizens giving birth and by naturalizing new citizens according to their state law.

After the Revolution those sovereign states joined in the Articles of Confederation. The Articles dealt primarily with mutual defense, amity between states, coinage, diplomatic and international issues.

Each state retained its sovereignty (Article II) and each state continued to add new citizens by birth and by naturalization under their state law.

Eventually the Constitution of the United States was adopted. State sovereignty continued to be retained by the Amendment X reservation of state powers. Notably, states ceeded to the United States their power of naturalization.

New citizens were added by citizens giving birth and by naturalizing new citizens according to United States law.

It is notable that these sovereign states have adopted two frames of government, both of which retain state sovereignty and neither of which adopt the English common law, in whole or in part.

Under the Articles of Confederation the states retained all their sovereign powers.

Under the Constitution the states ceeded all national concerns to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment makes clear that States retain only 1) those powers not delegated to the Federal government and 2) those powers not prohibited to states.

The United States is a compound republic. The Constitution defines how the sovereign states relate to each other as well as to the national government and it to them. The national government handles international affairs.

Under the Constitution there is a hierarchy of law:

• federal constitution
• treaties and acts of Congress
• State constitutions
• acts of State legislatures

This is unique and there is nothing like it found in English law.

Also:

• England does not have a written constitution
• Acts of Parliament can not be questioned
• English common law is customary domestic law, it is municipal in nature

By contrast, the United States has written constitutions and legislative acts are subject to judicial review.

The limited sovereignty of the states leaves them municipal duties and powers.

The supreme sovereignty of the federal government is national and international, not municipal.

For the reasons stated, unlike the states the Federal government does not and can not rely on English common law.

As is obvious: the common law of England is municipal in nature and ill suited to relations between sovereign states (both internal states and internationally). Relations between sovereign states is dealt with by the law of nations.

International relations are handled by the federal government. Naturalization is international by its very nature. Under the Constitution naturalization powers reside in the Federal government, not in the states, customary common law, or courts. Naturalization is controlled by legislated acts of Congress.

Let’s review the cases of citizenship and naturalization that arise prior to the Declaration of Independence and afterwards, and upon the adoption of the Constitution and afterwards:

Diagram of Native, Natural, and Naturalized Citizens during the Founding Era

Case 1

A British Subject in and Citizen of one of the Thirteen Colonies becomes, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, an American Citizen. At the Time of Adoption, by the grandfather clause of Art. II, this American Citizen is eligible to the Office of President*

Case 2

An Alien naturalizes and becomes a British Subject in and Citizen of one of the Thirteen Colonies. Upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence, he becomes an American Citizen. At the Time of Adoption, by the grandfather clause of Art. II, this American Citizen is eligible to the Office of President*

Case 3

A British Subject in and Citizen of one of the Thirteen Colonies has a child prior to the Declaration of Independence. This child is a British Subject and a native born Citizen of the Colony. At the signing of the Declaration of Independence this British Subject becomes an American Citizen. At the Time of Adoption, by the grandfather clause of Art. II, this American Citizen is eligible to the Office of President*

Case 4

A British Subject in and Citizen of one of the Thirteen Colonies has a child after the Declaration of Independence. The parents become, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, American Citizens. The child, born from American Citizen parents, is a natural born Citizen. This natural born American Citizen is eligible to the Office of President*

Case 5

Subsequent to the Declaration of Independence and prior to the Adoption an Alien naturalizes (under state law) and becomes a Citizen of one of the Thirteen States. At the Time of Adoption this American Citizen, by the grandfather clause of Art. II, is eligible to the Office of President*

Case 6

Subsequent to the Adoption an Alien naturalizes (under United States law) and becomes a Citizen of the United States. This Citizen is not eligible to the Office of President, they were not a Citizen at the Adoption nor are they a natural born Citizen.

Case 7

Subsequent to the Adoption an Alien has a child. The child is Alien and is not eligible to the Office of President.

* Provided:
• they are at least thirty-five years old
• have been fourteen years a resident within the United States

The Naturalization Act of 1790, et seq. specify the minor children of Aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of the parents.

These means that native born citizen is synonymous with natural born citizen.

There are two kinds of citizenship: native or natural born, and naturalized.

Subsequent to the ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark this is no longer true.

Broadening the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the 14th Amendment to include domiciled aliens which heretofore were not “subject to the jurisdiction”, the ruling created a distinction between native born citizen and natural born citizen.

This broadened interpretation of the 14th Amendment jurisdiction clause naturalized the children of certain aliens thus creating a distinction where none had existed.

Native born citizen and natural born citizen are no longer synonymous.

Early authorities that citizens born here were natural born citizens are correct. It is no longer true after Wong Kim Ark.

Advertisements

The United States and Mexican Claims Commission

It has for several years on various forums been repeatedly pointed out the conflicts of law created by:

º Claims that Naturalization Acts do not apply to alien parents’ US born children

º Claims that the 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause applies to those alien children, that they are “subject to the jurisdiction” and therefore are citizens

º Claims that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 “not subject to any foreign power” clause somehow means other than what is plainly stated.

International conflicts of law may be settled by a commission.

In accord with Art. XXI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to settle differences “by the arbitration of commissioners appointed on each side” [1], the United States and Mexican Claims Commission was established July 4, 1868.

The Commission consisted primarily of two commissioners, one to be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice of the Senate, and the other by the President of Mexico. A third person was to act as an umpire in cases of disagreement. [2]

The commissioners were to hear “one person on each side on behalf of each government on each and every separate claim” and they were to decide “according to public law, justice, and equity” all claims laid before them.

Members of the Commission hearing the cases cited below were:

The commissioner for the United States was William Henry Wadsworth, with counsel Joseph Ashton, former Assistant Attorney-General of the United States.

The commissioner for Mexico was Francisco Palacio, also with counsel.

The umpire was Sir Edward Thornton, British minister to the United States.

Some of the more than 2000 cases heard by the Commission dealt with citizenship. Here, excerpted for space, are two such cases. Both cases are post 14th Amendment.

Thornton, umpire, April 22, 1876, Beniguo Santos Suarez v. Mexico, No. 716, convention of July 4, 1868

“The umpire is of the opinion that it is not proved that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The ground that he is so, is his own statement that he was born at New York, together with a certificate of baptism of a child who was born at New York, Beniguo being one of the names which were given to him; but it is not proved that the child then born and baptised was one and the same person with the claimant. Nor would the mere fact of his having been born at New York be sufficient evidence of citizenship. It is clear that his parents were both aliens at the time of his birth, and it is not shown that they were naturalized or that they or the child remained in the United States. The inference is to the contrary, and the umpire believes that the child in question, even if that child was really the claimant, though born in the United States, was subject to a foreign power and cannot without further proof be considered to be a citizen of the United States” (emphasis added) [3]

Bernard J. Gautier v. Mexico, No. 958, United States and Mexican claims commission, convention of July 4, 1868

Claimant was born in Texas of French parents, and at the age of 19 years removed to Matamoras, Mexico, with his mother, a widow, where they established a commercial house. When Maximillian was sent to Mexico by Napolean III to establish an empire, a treaty was agreed upon between the two by which the so called Mexican Empire became bound to pay such claims of French subjects against Mexico as might be approved by a mixed commission. Claimant appeared before that commission… The French and Mexican mixed commission considered him entitled to French nationality, admitted his claim, and made an award in his favor for $1,000.

The commissioners, Mr. Palacio delivering the opinion, held that, as it did not appear that the parents of the claimant were naturalized during their residence in Texas, it was to be presumed that they retained their original French nationality; that the claimant, who left the United States before arriving at the age of 21 years, was entitled, according the the French code, to retain the nationality transmitted by his parents; that the laws of Mexico did not forbid such election; but that he was not entitled to renounce his French nationality and elect that of the United States, after he had abandoned that latter country to establish himself in another, and after he had made a valid act of adoption of French nationality.” (emphasis added) [4]

Had the claimant remained in the United States he would have retained the right of election, his right to renounce his French nationality or elect that of the United States.

These cases illustrate:

º Naturalization Acts do apply to alien parents’ US born children

º The 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause does not produce citizens from alien parents’ US born children, the children are themselves alien

º The Civil Rights Act of 1866 “not subject to any foreign power” clause means what is plainly stated

Finally, it is my great pleasure to point out the case of Christian Gatter [5].

“The claimant was brought to the United States while a minor by his father from Germany. He claimed citizenship though the naturalization of his father, but did not prove the naturalization.

The umpire, observing that there was no proof of the naturalization of the father, said: ‘The fact that he (the father) voted or even held office in the State of Illinois is no proof that he was a citizen of the United States. And if he was not, neither was his son, who does not pretend to have been naturalized.” (excerpted, emphasis added)

Note well judge Carroll (Voeltz v. Obama): contrary to your “miracle”, holding office is not proof of citizenship.

[1] Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with The Republic of Mexico, 9 Stat. 922, 939 (1848) available at memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

[2] John Bassett Moore, 2 History And Digest Of The International Arbitrations To Which The United States Has Been A Party, 1287 (1898) available at books.google.com

[3] Id. at 2449

[4] Id. at 2450

[5] Id. at 2547

By grace of Providence, with prayer for protection

New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection

It has been my practice to post research regarding “natural born citizen”, and in this post I make an exception to comment on a recent New Jersey court ruling.

In the Purpura and Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Access Objection, Obama’s attorney in New Jersey, Ms. Hill, claimed that “candidate” refers to delegates rather than the person seeking the office.

The position is that “During the primary elections, the voters do not vote for a candidate, but rather they vote for the delegates who are candidates for the office of the party delegate…”

Although I am not an attorney, I believe this to be an obvious error.

The process is clearly defined, there should be no confusion.

Petitioners indorse the person named in their petition as candidate for nomination for the office therein named. N.J.S.A. 19:23-7

Petitioners request that the name of the person therein mentioned be printed upon the official primary ballots of their political party as the candidate for such nomination. 19:23-7

A reading of the law indicates that the persons seeking office are to be listed on the Ballot as Candidates for nomination.

Let’s see how the law has been implemented.

Here is the “Official List of Candidates for President For February 2008 Primary Election”

http://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/election-results/2008-official-presidential-primary-candidates-121807.pdf

Note that the persons officially listed as Candidates are the persons seeking office.

Here is a “2008 Official Presidential Primary Election Sample Ballot”

http://www.co.hunterdon.nj.us/election/2008presidental/9thDistrictSample.pdf

Note that the persons listed on the official sample Ballot are the Candidates listed on the Official List of Candidates for President For February 2008 Primary Election

Note the Instructions for Voting, “PRESS THE BUTTON TO THE RIGHT OF THE CANDIDATE OF YOUR CHOICE; A GREEN ARROW WILL APPEAR SIGNIFYING YOUR SELECTION.” Please direct your attention to “CANDIDATE OF YOUR CHOICE”

As the above shows, the persons seeking office are in fact listed on the Ballot as Candidates. Voters do in fact cast Ballots for their choice of Candidate for nomination.

The law (19:23-7) has been implemented consistent with our reading of the law which indicates that the persons seeking office are to be listed on the Ballot as Candidates for nomination, and that Voters cast Ballots for a Candidate for nomination.

This demonstrates that Voters to not cast Ballots for delegates.

N.J.S.A. 19:3-3 specifies, “Delegates… to the national conventions of the political parties shall be elected at the primary election…”

Delegates are elected, and pursuant to Party rules allocated and apportioned to appear at the Party’s national Convention, “pledged” to a particular Candidate. During the process of the Convention a Candidate for the General Election is chosen by those Delegates. Delegates are elected to implement these internal Party mechanisms.

Primary Voters cast Ballots for Candidates for nomination, BUT delegates are elected. “Delegate” and “Candidate” are distinct, specified by statute, and can not be conflated.

A provision of 19:23-7 is that “Accompanying the petition, each person indorsed therein shall file a certificate, stating that he is qualified for the office mentioned in the petition…” It is disputed that the Candidate (eg, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich) is not required to certify that they are qualified for the office. Flacks contend that it is the delegates who must certify that they are qualified. This is partially true.

According to 19:23-7, Petitioners shall set forth that the signers thereof are:

  1. qualified voters of       
            • the State
            • congressional district
            • county, or county election district
            • municipality
            • ward or election district

    as the case may be, in which they reside and for which they desire to nominate candidates;

  2. that they are members of a political party (naming the same),
  3. that they intend to affiliate with that political party at the ensuing election;

The other part of the truth is, the plain text of 19:23-7, “Accompanying the petition, each person indorsed therein shall file a certificate, stating that he is qualified for the office mentioned in the petition…” As previously shown, the person indorsed on the petition is the Candidate.

Obama is required to certify that he is qualified for office.

The Impossibility of English Common Law & the Federal Govt.

I have discovered an excellent explanation as to why English common law can not be the basis of the Federal govt.

The explanation is found in the Appendix to “Correspondence between George Nicholas Esq. of Kentucky, and the Hon. Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, on the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, 1798”

The Appendix is titled, “Observations of Judge Addisons Charge to the Grand Jury On the Liberty-of-the-Press”

Here, heavily paraphrased, is the thrust of the argument:

Could the common law of England become part of the law of the United States by its being part of the law of each of the states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?

Although this would be giving efficacy to the inferior instead of the superior, let it be considered.

The law of each state prior to the adoption of the Constitution consisted of the common law of England, the state constitution, and the acts of the state legislature.

The common law of England then was only one of three pillars on which the law of each state was built. It was also the weakest of the three; because it ceased to have any efficacy as law as soon as it was clearly contradicted by either of the others.

If the common law became a part of the law of the United States, because it was part of the law of the individual state, the other two parts of the law of those states must also become a part of the law of the United States, and for the same reason.

But it may be said that these other two parts of the law of each state were dissimilar in the different states, and therefore could not become a part of the law of the United States; whereas the common law of England, in every state being the same, it might become the common law of the United States.

Is the common law of England in every state the same?

The acts of the British parliament are in force in the different states up to different periods; in some to the reign of one king, in others to that of a different king.

Thus the common law of England would be different in these two states.

But the great difference which has been made in the common law in the different states, has proceeded from the changes which have been made in it, by the acts of all the legislatures of the different states, from the time of their first settlement.

Not only is the common law of England different among the states, each state legislature has altered it in different ways; thus the common law of the various states is in no way uniform.

The common law being materially different in all the sates, how can there be any common law in the United States? How shall it be determined which of the states shall be considered as the standard, so far as to make their common law, the common law of the United States? Shall it be a majority of the states; or shall it be those states which contain a majority of the people of the United States? &c &c

Incorporation of the common law into the Federal govt is impracticable.

Has the common law of England been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution?

The constitution declares, that “this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

The common law of England has not been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution.

Therefore, in no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.

The relevant pages of the original document, as well as a transcript from those images, is available at scribd:

Or go to the Library of Congress
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fawbib:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28bbf0081%29%29

The Absurdity of the “US Birth = Natural Born” Position

“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…” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl 5.

Two circumstances are enumerated, each specifying the requirements applicable in that circumstance.

The circumstances are “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”, and “all other times”.

The requirements applicable in each circumstance are “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, respectively.

Citizens are added to the United States by naturalization and by birth in the United States. The 14th Amendment defined “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 delegates to Congress the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”.

Legislation enabling Art. I, § 8, cl. 4 can add individuals to the set of people termed “citizen”, or remove individuals from the set of people termed “citizen”. The only other way an individual can be termed “citizen” is by birth in the United States.

The term “citizen” is applicable only “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”

At all other times the requirement is “natural born citizen”.

There is no provision in the Constitution delegating to Congress the power to “establish a Rule of Natural Born Citizenship”. Accordingly, there is no enabling legislation which adds individuals to the set of people termed “natural born citizen”, or remove individuals from the set of people termed “natural born citizen”.

This tells us two things:

1) “natural born citizen” exists without any requirement for enabling legislation
2) the meaning is generally understood

What individuals could be in the set of people termed “natural born citizen”?

Obviously, naturalized citizens can not be included due to reliance on enabling legislation as well as the fact that naturalization produces indivduals termed “citizen” rather than “natural born citizen”

What about all persons born in the United States as per the 14th Amendment? The 14th Amend. defines persons termed “citizen” rather than “natural born citizen”

There must be some other factor.

The noun “citizen” in the first clause is qualified by the adjective “natural born”. This rule is ordinary English, the noun is modified by the adjective such that only those nouns having the specific characteristic are included. Therefore:

1) “Natural born citizen” is more specific than “citizen”
2) “Natural born citizen” is a subset of “citizen”
3) “Natural born” is a specific characteristic appertaining to some citizens but not all

Birth in the United States is a necessary element for “citizen” and is, on its own, sufficient for “citizen”.

“Natural born citizens” are a subset of “citizens”. Therefore birth in the United States is a necessary element for “natural born citizen” but is, on its own, insufficient for “natural born citizen”.

Only some citizens “born in the United States” are “natural born citizens”.

People “born in the United States” are born to parents who are either citizens or aliens.

Which citizens “born in the United States” are “natural born citizens”, the children of citizens or the children of aliens?

It would be irrational to grant to the children of aliens, and deny to the children of citizens, the privilege of eligibility for the Office of President.

“Natural born citizen” must mean citizens born from citizen parents.

The meaning of Article II is self-evident.

Founding Era Article II Eligibility

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, Constitution of the United States

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Diagram of Native, Natural, and Naturalized Citizens during the Founding Era

Case 1

A British Subject in and Citizen of one of the Thirteen Colonies becomes, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, an American Citizen. At the Time of Adoption this American Citizen is eligible to the Office of President provided:

• they are at least thirty-five years old
• have been fourteen years a resident within the United States

Case 2

A British Subject in and Citizen of one of the Thirteen Colonies has a child after the Declaration of Independence. The parents become, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, American Citizens. The child, born from American Citizen parents, is a natural born Citizen. This natural born American Citizen is eligible to the Office of President provided:

• they are at least thirty-five years old
• have been fourteen years a resident within the United States

Case 3

A British Subject in and Citizen of one of the Thirteen Colonies has a child prior to the Declaration of Independence. This child is a British Subject and a native born Citizen of the Colony. At the signing of the Declaration of Independence this British Subject becomes an American Citizen. At the Time of Adoption this American Citizen is eligible to the Office of President provided:

• they are at least thirty-five years old
• have been fourteen years a resident within the United States

Case 4

An Alien naturalizes and becomes a British Subject in and Citizen of one of the Thirteen Colonies. Upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence, he becomes an American Citizen. At the Time of Adoption this American Citizen is eligible to the Office of President provided:

• they are at least thirty-five years old
• have been fourteen years a resident within the United States

Case 5

An Alien naturalizes and becomes a Citizen of one of the Thirteen States. At the Time of Adoption this American Citizen is eligible to the Office of President provided:

• they are at least thirty-five years old
• have been fourteen years a resident within the United States

Case 6

An Alien naturalizes after the Adoption and becomes a Citizen of the United States. This Citizen is not eligible to the Office of President, they were not a Citizen at the Adoption nor are they a natural born Citizen.

A PDF copy is available.

The Grandfather Clause

“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;” – Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5

A distinction is made between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”, this much is self evident.

The purpose of the grandfather clause is to allow Revolution Era patriots born outside the country to be eligible for the Presidency.

Not just Revolution Era patriots born outside the country, but only those who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution are eligible.

So what citizens born outside the country would be citizens at the time of adoption? They are those:

I. Foreign born English subjects (however they came to be such) in the several Colonies who became US citizens by the naturalization power of the Declaration of Independance

II. Naturalized by one of the states while under the Articles of Confederation

English subjects naturalized by the Declaration of Independance includes those born in one of the Colonies, as well as those born someplace else as in Case I above. The place of birth is not a factor in their eligibility, it is their naturalization which makes them eligible.

There are natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and aliens.

If the intended prohibition was “all citizens except naturalized citizens” Article II would have been worded so.

The time of the adoption is the only time naturalized citizens are eligible. They are citizens included in the “citizens at the time of adoption” clause – but they are naturalized citizens, as differentiated from natural born citizens.

Natural born citizens must obviously be born from citizens.[1]

More at http://www.scribd.com/doc/65871038

The meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is self evident.
_____

[1] United States Naturalization Law states that children of aliens naturalize upon the naturalization of their parents. Aside from aliens who else is in country?

Naturalized citizens, who are ineligible except at the time of adoption.

Citizens born from naturalized citizens and citizens born from native born citizens, both of whom are citizens born from citizens, ie natural born citizens.

Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Natural Born

A clear understanding of terms is necessary for a meaningful discussion.

The origin and principle of Natural Law, the origin and purpose of Positive Law, and the relationship of each to Natural Rights must be understood.

  1. Mankind in its natural state posesses Natural Rights
  2. These Rights are inalienable
  3. Mankind is seperated from the beasts by the light of Reason
  4. Natural Law is the law of right Reason
  5. Mankind is social and forms Societies
  6. Natural Law dictates the necessity of restraint of Natural Rights within a Society, for Reason dictates: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. This fundamental principle is a credo universally accepted by all societies.
  7. Natural Law is the first restraint on Natural Rights
  8. Mankind is Fallible
  9. Mankind will deviate from the universal credo
  10. Mankind will make errors of Reason
  11. Mankind will have disagreements of Reason
  12. To secure Natural Rights to the degree possible and agreed to, a Society must institute Government
  13. Government issues Positive Law
  14. Natural Rights are secured through Positive Law
  15. Positive Law derives its Power and Legitimacy from Natural Law, and its Authority and Enforcability from Government
  16. Government Authority is derived from the Consent of the Governed

 

All are born posessing Natural Rights. Those Rights exist until death.

In Society, as a consequence of Natural Law, Natural Rights are restrained by Positive Law.

The restraint of a Natural Right is not an elimination of that Right.

Upon birth, children are members of a family, as is their Natural Right. The child has a Natural Right to the parents, and to no one else. The parents, and no one else, have a Natural Right to the child, and to no one else.

There is no Natural Right to membership in another family.

There is no Natural Right to membership in another family’s nation, or their Society.

The family is a member of their tribe/nation and its Society.

Members of Society born from members of Society is the natural due course of events untended by Positive Law.

A Society may by Positive Law admit others.

All members of Society are termed Citizens.

Citizens born from Citizens are Natural Born Citizens.

The Time of Adoption

Article II,Section 1,Clause 5,Constitution of the United States

“No person except a natural born citizen,or a citizen of the United States,at the timeof the adoption of this Constitution, shall beeligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years,and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

This diagram helps clarify who those eligible “at the time of adoption” are.

Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed, 1910


Some interesting definitions.

NATIVE.  A natural-born subject or citizen; a denizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.  The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts.  see U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. (I include this for completeness even though it is tainted by WKA.)

NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT.  In English law.  One born within the dominions, or rather within the allegiance, of the king of England.

NATURALIZE.  To confer citizenship upon an alien; to make a foreigner the same in respect to rights and privileges, as if he were a native citizen or subject.

NATION.  A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty.

NATIONALITY.  That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person’s belonging to a nation or state.  Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status.  Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization.   “nationality” is also used as opposed to “territoriality” for the purpose of distinguishing the case of a nation having no national territory; e.g., the Jews.


%d bloggers like this: