Natural born Citizen v. Citizen of the United States. Which are you?
My book BUSTED – A Whistleblower's Guide to the War on Drugs contains two chapters on U.S. citizenship, including natural born Citizen status. But why would a book about the illegality of the war on drugs include two chapters on citizenship? This is for two reasons. First, one's citizenship determines certain rights in the United States. For example, Americans cannot be deported, while non-citizens can be. Second, citizenship is included in my book because both the constitutional term crime (including the terms offense, felony and misdemeanor) and the term natural born Citizen are defined by natural law, and are merely codified by the constitution. This means that these terms are not subject to legislatures (or courts). The terms have the meanings that the U.S. constitution gives them. Given that crime is defined elsewhere on this website, I will use this post to define the differences between natural born Citizens and (naturalized) Citizens of the United States, both which are established at Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. constitution.
As there are two jurisdictions in American constitutions – i.e., the natural and positive law jurisdictions – there are also two kinds of U.S. citizens – i.e., natural citizens and positive law citizens. These are constitutionally known as “natural born Citizens” and (naturalized) “Citizens of the United States.” As with children in families, some U.S. citizens are natural born to parents; others are adopted. This means that natural born Citizens and adopted Citizens of the United States are two separate and exclusive classes of U.S. citizens, with separate origins, rights and duties. And thus, the U.S. constitution creates a class system among citizens. The pecking order is A) natural born Citizens, B) (naturalized) Citizens of the United States, and C) foreign citizens. According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856), a Citizen of the United States “has all the rights of a natural born citizen except that of being eligible as president or vice-president of the United States.” So what is the difference between a natural born Citizen and a (naturalized) Citizen of the United States? The main difference is that all (naturalized) Citizens of the United States are naturally foreign, and adopted by Congress. What makes them foreign is that they have foreign fathers. In contrast, all natural born Citizens have U.S. citizen fathers. Because American constitutions are based on natural law and because jurisprudence is based on natural science, then these types of citizenships are scientifically provable based on DNA. All natural born Citizens have the DNA of U.S. citizen fathers and all naturalized citizens have the DNA of foreign fathers. One's class of U.S. citizenship is provable by one's DNA. As we shall see below, proof of one's fatherhood, through DNA or other tests, is required by U.S. law to create a natural born Citizen outside of marriage. Given that there are two types of citizenship (nbc & naturalized) and two different constitutional jurisdictions from which they arise (natural and positive law), then there are two separate sovereigns over citizenship. The sovereigns over natural born Citizens are U.S. citizen fathers. The sovereign over Citizens of the United States is Congress. This is explained below, and further here. Given that the "United States" essentially means Congress, then (naturalized, adopted) Citizens of the United States are citizens-subjects of Congress, just as British subjects are subjects of the British Crown. In contrast, natural born Citizens owe no political duties to Congress because they are born into a political jurisdiction that is separate from Congress'. Natural born Citizens owe only natural duties to fellow citizens, such as the duty to not harm them and the duty to defend the homeland. Congress may legislate only consistently with these natural duties, and does. (Because Citizens of the United States owe Congress their political rights, Congress legislates only over them.) U.S. citizen fathers have primary (subject matter) jurisdiction over U.S. citizenship. The U.S. government looks first to the biological father to determine the child's citizenship. If the father is foreign or if the U.S. father fails to step forward to claim the child as his own (through marriage or formal legitimation), then the U.S. government looks to other factors, i.e., birth on U.S. soil or birth to a U.S. mother, to determine whether the child was naturalized at birth. This dynamic is evident at 8 USC 1409. There, when a child is born to a U.S. father out of wedlock and in a foreign country – in the state of Nature, so to speak – then Congress waits 18 years for the U.S. father to step up and claim the child as a U.S. citizen. Being the product of a U.S. citizen father, the child becomes a natural born Citizen. However, if the father fails to properly claim the child into his political society, as occurred in Nyugen v. INS (2001), then the U.S. government looks to the other factors to determine if naturalized citizenship, based on U.S. soil or a U.S. mother, is warranted. This dynamic is explained in Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations. (Book 1, Chapter XXI, Section 212) "As a society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights... I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen, for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." Thus, 1) one nationality is natural, while the other is acquired, and 2) U.S. fathers are the source of all natural born Citizens. Natural born Citizens are either created in marriages to U.S. fathers or are legitimated by their fathers after birth, such as under 8 USC 1409 (a) and (b). Says the U.S. government, legitimation means "placing a child born out of wedlock in the same legal position as a child born in wedlock." Thus, marriage and legitimation are the only means by which male U.S. citizens personally secure citizenship for their offspring anywhere in the world, which is citizenship that springs from them, based on their authority alone, and no one else's. This puts U.S. citizen fathers primarily in charge of U.S. citizenship. If these U.S. males do not marry a foreign mother of their child born abroad to provide citizenship at birth, then they must legitimate the child after birth, or their child goes without U.S. citizenship. They owe the U.S. government no duty to create a citizen, but I would argue that they owe a natural duty to the child to properly convey the child's natural birthright. This is not the case with U.S. mothers and naturalized citizenship. Congress offers naturalized citizenship -- automatically, at birth and without legitimation -- to all children born anywhere in the world to married or unmarried U.S. females (with minor age and U.S. residency requirements) and to children born to foreign parents (including foreign women) on U.S. soil. See 8 USC 1409(c) and 8 USC 1401. That Congress grants citizenship by these statutes is proof that such citizenship is naturalized citizen, i.e. that of a Citizen of the United States. A birth certificate is sufficient to authenticate a naturalized U.S. citizen because there are natural witnesses to a child's motherhood, place and time of birth. However because there are no witnesses to fatherhood, the unmarried U.S. father is required -- as if he was in a tribe -- to step forth and claim the child as his own. This is natural law in action, codified by Congress at 8 USC 1409 (a) and (b). If he fails to do this in a timely manner, i.e. within 18 years of birth, then the U.S. government looks to the nationality of the mother or the place of birth to adjudicate naturalization. Natural law is also at work in the natural fact that women can go from tribe-to-tribe or nation-to-nation to create citizens of those tribes or nations, which men naturally cannot do. For example, the children of U.S. women naturally gain the citizenship of their foreign fathers, and their mothers are the basis for their naturalized U.S. citizenship. Thus, women as a gender can participate in conveying both foreign citizenship and naturalized domestic citizenship, while men can only convey their own country's citizenship. For instance, by all criteria (mother, father, soil), I am a natural born Citizen. I was born in Indiana and had both a U.S. mother and U.S. father. If I went to England and produced a child with a British mother, that child would be a British subject based on the mother or place of birth, but not based on my nationality as a male. As a male U.S. citizen, I can convey only natural born Citizenship from the great U.S. of A. So, my child born in Great Britain is a natural born Citizen through me and a British subject due to the mother or soil birth. As a male U.S. citizen, I can create natural born Citizens all over the world through marriage or legitimation. In conclusion, the U.S. citizen father has primary and plenary jurisdiction over natural citizenship in the United States. In the absence of marriage or legitimation by the U.S. father, then the U.S. government looks to the mother or the place of birth to award naturalized citizenship. This means that anyone claiming U.S. citizenship based on soil jurisdiction, such as Barack Obama and Marco Rubio, or based on the mother's citizenship, such as Ted Cruz, is making the argument that they are (naturalized) Citizens of the United States, and not natural born Citizens. Because these three individuals are not natural born Citizens, they are not eligible to be President under the U.S. constitution. A government headed by one of these individuals is illegitimate and unrepresentative of the country's native citizens. It is an injury to my natural and constitutional right to a representative republican government. It is an injury to U.S. fathers everywhere, who are to be the sole source of U.S. Presidents. Present and future false “Presidents” cannot sign anything into law and are frauds upon the world. To believe or argue, as do Obama, Cruz and Rubio, that they are natural born Citizens based on either U.S. soil jurisdiction or on U.S. motherhood, would be for a child of King George III -- born either to a U.S. mother or to the Queen of England on U.S. soil -- to be eligible to both be the U.S. President and the King of England. Such an absurdity cannot stand even in our mixed-up world.