Of course they aren't interested in renouncing their country....their intentions are to make 'this country' their home country in culture and language and religion...
It's called an "INVASION"
2013 at our Whitehouse.
Posted on 08/28/2015 7:44:54 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
bttt
Plus they owe no allegiance to the United States
___________________________________
its worse than that..
Allegiance is a voluntary status, a decision to renounce all allegiance, ties, with the previous country and to give all loyalty to the new country, the US alone and to not look back to the past relationship..
To become an American citizen you have to first renounce the country you came from, you were born in..Illegal aliens don’t do that, are not interested in doing so, refuse to consider such a move, etc..
by coming into the country illegally the illegal alien has broadcast his or her intention to ignore, flaunt, thumb their nose at our sovereign immigration laws..America is not important to them..these no love, respect for the laws, intention to honor or pledge allegiance to the flag or anything else..
Immigration is like God’s idea of marriage...a woman leaves her parents and cleaves to her husband alone..the immigrant leaves the country (parents) of his birth and cleaves to the US alone..
also its like the occasion when I was confirmed into the Anglican Church at 14..part of the ceremony was the words “I renounce the devil and all of his works I turn my back on the devil (as a citizen of the world/Earth) cut all ties, relationship, allegiance and cleaved, gave all loyalty, allegiance, etc to Jesus, to God (as a citizen of Heaven just residing on the Earth)
I was required to swear and sign a document to renounce my citizenship in New Zealand about a month before the ceremony to become an American citizen..that meant I could no longer use my New Zealand passport, it was null and void, I could no longer vote in new Zealand, I could no longer expect New Zealand to regard me as their responsibility, I now needed a passport to visit New Zealand as I was a foreigner, an alien to that country..
some of these people need to ask an immigrant to explain the facts to them..Not a new citizen in the last 10 years but one who has been here a while..
plus an American citizen or a registered alien/immigrant is subject to the draft, when we had one and in the future, an illegal alien is not..
none of these authors, reporters, radio/TV hosts are interviewing immigrants, but that’s typical when the subject is immigration or pseudo immigration..the experts aren’t asked to comment...just the pundits who don’t know what they are talking about..
#22
Of course they aren't interested in renouncing their country....their intentions are to make 'this country' their home country in culture and language and religion...
It's called an "INVASION"
2013 at our Whitehouse.
\
Obama could be a Kenyan by birth but he is not a Kenyan by conception. Obama’s mama Stanley Ann in her wild teens had an affair with a cult leading communist SE Asian named Muhammed Subuh. Check him out on the internet to get his history and likeness to Obama. Obama tried to cover these tracks by presidential privacy decree in one of his very first executive orders but he couldn’t do such for mama Stanley Ann. By the way of checking it out don’t ignore the connections with Fuddy the keeper of records in Hawaii.
i’m aware of the information but it would be just a distraction from the point.
no matter how it’s sliced, unless he comes out with new parents, 0bama is not a US citizen
I don’t see any and all valid info about Obama as being a distraction. I grant that my attractions might be different from others but I do believe such are significant. Different strokes for/by different folks are words I recognize.
No, I don't think they formally ended birthright citizenship until sometime in the 1990s or thereabouts.
Since the Framers' plan was to create a system of self-government on the basis of the consent of the governed, requiring the citizen's allegiance to be voluntary fits into this design. At the same time, the government gives its consent to admit the citizen into the national body, too. Compliance with the immigration and naturalization laws satisfies the requirements necessary for that consent.
In other words, U.S. citizenship is consensual, not like what we find in British common law, or ascriptive. Ascriptive citizenship is akin to jus soli doctrine, and is premised on the idea of "subjectship," not "citizenship" in the American concept.
In the CIS article I cited above, Jon Feere mentions that the Founders rejected the mediaeval concept of ascriptive "subjectship" in favor of a model of citizenship based on consent.
The liberty sought by the Founders required citizenship, rather than subjectship, as only the former allowed the individual to leave [i.e., to expatriate himself by withdrawing his allegiance to the U.S.] his nation at any time of his choosing — a freedom not possible under British common law.There really is no idea of what we mean by "citizen" in British common law. Any person born within the realm of the King was a subject of the British Crown. This subject status dates from the date of birth and is absolutely perpetual. It cannot be revoked; one's natural allegiance can never be canceled or transferred to another. (Which is why the British government continued to regard Americans as British subjects well into the 19th century.)
As Blackstone explained, the “natural-born subject of one prince cannot by any act of his own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former… and it is unreasonable that, by such voluntary act of his own, he should be able at pleasure to unloose those bands, by which he is connected to his natural prince.” It was this very type of subjugation that the Founders did not want to bring to the new government.As Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith write:
“[B]irthright citizenship originated as a distinctively feudal status intimately linked to medieval notions of sovereignty, legal personality, and allegiance. At a conceptual level, then, it was fundamentally opposed to the consensual assumptions that guided the political handiwork of 1776 and 1787. In a polity whose chief organizing principle was and is the liberal, individualistic idea of consent, mere birth within a nation’s border seems to be an anomalous, inadequate measure or expression of an individual’s consent to its rule and a decidedly crude indicator of the nation’s consent to the individual’s admission to political membership."Schuck and Smith argue that "a constitutional commitment to 'citizenship based on mutual consent' is not only in line with the historical development of the United States but that it is also 'constitutionally permissible and democratically legitimate.'"
Dear Tennessee Nana, your own personal experience completely captures the issues involved here:
"I was required to swear and sign a document to renounce my citizenship in New Zealand about a month before the ceremony to become an American citizen..that meant I could no longer use my New Zealand passport, it was null and void, I could no longer vote in new Zealand, I could no longer expect New Zealand to regard me as their responsibility, I now needed a passport to visit New Zealand as I was a foreigner, an alien to that country."I found your testimony here so deeply moving! Certainly the illegal aliens that have been busting over our borders in recent times do not think in these terms. They aren't coming for citizenship per se; just to "find a better life."
They don't expatriate from, say, Mexico. Neither do they give allegiance to the United States.
If they don't care about giving their consent of allegiance to America, then America should not give its consent to them.
Thank you so very much for your beautiful essay/post!
Big difference between “Immigrant” and “Insurgent”..
they are not the same.. you’re one or the other..
AN Immigrant CAN NOT be illegal.. if they are not legal then they are not immigrants..
they are “something else”.. instead of being an immigrant..
It can be done by Executive Dictate.
This concept of consent as you noted in your message is a very significant, and too often overlooked factor in this debate. Again, as you pointed out, Feudalism underpins the British Common law understanding of owing permanent allegiance to the ruler on who's land you are born. The ruler in effect owns you.
This notion is very inconsistent with a nation that is founded on the "consent of the governed". Likewise that "citizens" can be created automatically without the consent of the people of the nation of which they are claimed to be "citizens" is also an affront to the concept of "consent of the governed."
As I have pointed out numerous times, Naturalization and Adoptions are the same legal phenomena, just on different scales. No one would accept the idea that you may use the family name just from being born in the family house, the usage of the family name requires the consent of the members of the family.
If the idea of becoming a member of a family from simply being born on the family land seems ridiculous on the small scale, why isn't it also ridiculous on the larger scale?
Well it is, but some people simply don't want to see it.
Anyways, very good write up from you. One of the best I have seen in a long while.
I wanted to address this point also. Over my years of researching this issue, I had a sudden realization which I think is true, but of which I am not completely certain.
It is regarding the usage of the word "citizen." It is well known now that when Thomas Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence (The document which actually created American Citizens) he originally wrote down the word "Subject", and then erased it, and then replacing it with the word "Citizen."
From what I can determine, the word "Citizen" at this time was seldom used, and generally referred to the inhabitants of a city. I note that in all the works of Shakespeare in which it is used, it refers to the inhabitants of a city. I also note that in Blackstone, the word also refers to the inhabitants of a city.
Why would Jefferson not use the word "Subject"? That was a commonly used English word, and everyone understood what it meant. There was no need to replace it with the word "Citizen" unless there was something distinctly different about the status of a "citizen" versus that of a "Subject".
Many people of today would have you believe they were intended to be used interchangeably and that they follow the same legal principles. But the fact that the word was deliberately changed implies that there was some other influence on Jefferson which led him to believe the two words did not have the same meaning, and likewise there was some influence on him to use the word to describe the members of a Nation rather than just the inhabitants of a City.
I believe that Jefferson chose that word because it had been made popular by the writings of Emmerich Vattel.
Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages. Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens.
"Citizen" was the word Vattel used to describe the members of a Republic that gained it's independence from a Monarchy. Indeed, Vattel seems to be the only writer of that entire era that claimed people had a natural right to declare independence from a Monarchy, and govern themselves.
This is understandable because he is the only widely read writer of that time that did not live under a Monarchy. A King of any country would have considered the notion that you can throw off his rule and form your own government as treasonous and seditious, and so no writer who lived in a Kingdom would dare write such a thing.
Vattel lived in the Swiss Republic. They hadn't had a King for 468 years.
To sum up my point, it is the very substitution of the word "Citizen" for "Subject" that points to it's origin. "Citizen" is the word Vattel used, and since Vattel was Jefferson's influence in writing the Declaration of Independence, Vattel's meaning is therefore implicit in the usage of the word "citizen."
Had we intended to follow English Common law, the word we would be using would be "Subject."
You are referring to the line that, as originally written, said: "“By inciting insurrections of our fellow subjects, with the allurements of forfeiture and confiscation.” Jefferson had plagiarized/borrowed that line verbatim from the First Virginia Constitution (1776). In Virginia's first Constitution, that line was followed immediately by the following: "by prompting our Negroes to rise in Arms among us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by Law."
In drafting the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson initially copied that first portion verbatim and then changed the word subjects to citizens. Maybe he didn't want there to be any hint that people in the colonies were subjects. Ultimately, Jefferson also eliminated the word citizens in that line and changed that whole line to read "“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” Maybe he didn't want there to be any implication that Negroes could be citizens. Who knows? But, the word us is very neutral as to political status.
Arguably, the word "citizen" did not even exist before Thomas Jefferson crafted the word in a way relevant to the modern world.
There is no such idea in British common law, which was profoundly influential (along with British parliamentary law) on American thinking.
British common law called for Birthright Citizenry, on a jus soli basis: Any person born in the King's realm is instantly a "subject" of the King. This captures the mediaeval idea that any person born in the King's realm has a "natural sovereign," to whom the person owes — by simple matter of the place of his birth — perpetual, unforfeitable, irrevocable allegiance for as long as he should live.
Americans don't very much like ideas like that. So TJ had to come up with a more suitable understanding of a person's relation to his State, so to capture it in a word....
Arguably, "citizen" was a notable word that was taken up by the French Revolution. They got this idea from the American Revolution. The problem was, the French had no idea what the Americans were talking about.
Somehow the French thought that this idea of "citizen" was the irreducible context in which such civic values as "liberty, equality, and brotherhood" could be achieved.
While we can applaud the French for their applause for an abstract, "individual liberty" doctrine, they never found any way to reconcile "liberty" with "equality" and "brotherhood." Indeed, not till this day.
But this was the very question the "exceptional" Americans were trying to solve. The product of their effort is the United States Constitution.
It specifies a system of governance that is, RIGHT DOWN TO THE GROUND, subject to the CONSENT of the governed.
It calls for a system of personal liberty under equal laws, with equal justice for all. Its legitimacy is subject to, completely contingent on, the Will of the People. It calls for the sovereignty of We the People — individuals acting in concert who, under the Preamble, clearly state that they are the grantors of whatever powers the federal government exercises; and they are acting to the benefit of themselves "and their posterity."
The Constitution charges the federal government to guarantee the inalienable individual rights of each its citizens, equally; it is charged with the maintenance of the courts, and with the defense of the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Beyond that, the Constitution doesn't seem to give the feds much to do. Indeed, it was the sense of the Framers that most of the problems of human life should be left to the jurisdiction of local and State bodies — to people closer to the persons and communities directly under their governance. Who would be the same folks as live under the same local economic and cultural conditions as their constituents, who thus may have good, objective evidence from local experience on which to base their policy judgments.
Anyhoot, in conclusion, I'll go on to say that the word "citizen" (as we understand its meaning today), is of American coinage. Our supposed cultural colleagues in Europe to this day probably either don't understand the meaning that Americans have historically connected to the word; OR they find the word inconvenient to their own Eurozone projects.
My argument is that it's usage by US is of Swiss Origin. That Vattel was the first person to use the term in the manner that we understand it to mean today.
That Jefferson got the concept from Vattel, and this can be demonstrated by clarifying the usage of the word prior to and subsequent to the writings of Vattel reaching America.
I am betting that the word was little used until Vattel made it popular.
Indeed, DiogenesLamp! Well said!!!
Which leads to the next question: Since the American system is based on "consent of the governed," in what way does this premise require We the People to accept new would-be entrants to this nation who wish to enter without giving consensual, undivided allegiance to the United States?
Such folks simply have no business being here.
Again it all boils down to the issue of mutual consent regarding legal immigrants who come here, under the full auspices of American immigration and naturalization law, who are willing to swear an oath of undivided loyalty, of undivided allegiance to the United States, having already severed all formal and legal ties to the country of their origin.
Illegal immigrants, on the other hand, in most cases have never even heard of the idea of "affirmative, consensual allegiance," let alone that it is necessary for a new citizen of the United States to give it, in order to be accepted into the national body politic.
Certainly the children of foreign nationals giving birth on U.S. soil cannot make, are incompetent to make, such a declaration of allegiance. Certainly, a child born to a foreign national on U.S. soil cannot do such a thing, before he attains the age of 18 years. So, does that mean that a child born on U.S. soil to a foreign national is a "stateless person" till he reaches age 18, so to become competent to declare whatever his actual allegiance is?
This is totally nutz — irrational and counterintuitive. Of course, that child is not "stateless." Any child has always been understood, under American law (not to mention the Law of Nations), as inheriting his nationality from his parents.
So much for the consent of the individual applicant for American citizenship. The rest of the problem is the consent of the American people to receive this person as a new, legitimate member of the body politic.
It probably goes without saying to any attentive observer, that the "Open Borders" crowd has a stake in totally obviating any idea of "consent" in determining whether one is a U.S. citizen or not. Their object is to totally ratify, in American public opinion, the idea that American citizens are born in terms of the "soil" they are born on, and nothing else.
I gather this is the perspective of Jorge Ramos — who recently had an altercation with The Donald.
My impression of Ramos: He is an advance guard, and chief proselytizer of the Mexican Reconquista.
I don't know his American citizenship status, if any. But surely, he is carrying water for the Mexican government.
When The Donald shut him down (for being out of turn) at a recent press conference, the braying Left want nutz over it, claiming that Ramos' First Amendment rights had been infringed.
Later in the presser, The Donald — without any obvious prompting — readmitted him, to deliver his "screed." So it seems to me that The Donald was not at all "unfair" to Ramos: Ramos got his "two-cents-worth" in there....
Which wasn't even worth two cents, in my judgment.
Ramos is not a "journalist." He is a card-carrying proselytizer and activist of the Mexican Reconquista — which demands that the United States admit all Mexican nationals as "citizens" of the United States, even, maybe especially, those of its nationals in our country illegally.
The Donald didn't cut Ramos short because of his bad parliamentary manners; The Donald cut him short because he understood where "that guy was coming from."
Which has nothing to do with the well-being of We the People of the United States of America.
Thank you so much for writing, DiogenesLamp. I've read some of your posts on other threads recently, and found them eminently sound and well-reasoned.
Keep up the great work!
I guess that automatically rules out the treasonous Mexican nationalist Jorge Ramos who boasts of voting in both America and Mexico.
Dual citizenship drives me nuts.
Is Ramos a naturalized citizen? Or just an illegal voter here in the U.S.?
Whatever the case, Ramos is clearly a "Mexican nationalist," who works to advance the interests of the Mexican government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.