14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness

ConstitutionallySpeaking ^ | April 10, 2011 | Linda Melin

[patlin]

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 born on US soil are citizens by statute because the status of the foreign parents are governed by Treaty, not by nature.

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/

[patlin]

This is why the words “natural born” were removed in 1795 from the Nationality Act. With feudal law still prominent around the globe, the US Govt could not guarantee that foreign nations would not lay claim to a child born to US citizen parents on feudal soil in a time of war. They had to revert back to the law of nations, exclusive allegiance & treaties with foreign nations to avoid at all costs the threat of foreign influence in the White House. Read the Treaty of Paris & the 1870 Treaty between the US & the Brits as well as the Treaty with Saxony (part of English-Germany, yes at its founding, England & Germany were one nation under one sovereign king). The treaty with the Brits says one thing(feudal law-jus soli), the treaty with German Saxony says another(natural law-”jus sanguinis”). I am ready to testify before Congress on this subject. My research is complete. Children born on US soil “may be” citizens by treaty, but they do not officially become US citizens unless & until that choice is made and their foreign citizenship is renounced. Their parents having no right of citizenship can not legally speak for them in this area of the law. This is the law of nations from time immemorial. This is also the time immemorial natural law of consent which a child does not personally hold until they come of legal age. Until then, they are under the jurisdiction of their parents and the jurisdiction of the parents citizenship. That political jurisdiction of the parents is what governs the childrens nationality at birth and through their youth.

Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791, The Works of James Wilson, Vol II on sovereign citizens:

You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons. Between dignity and duty, no separation was made by them. In the early period of the Anglo-Saxon state, the allodial proprietors were numerous; their estates were generally small; and all were understood to be of the same rank and condition. Some, indeed, were distinguished above others by their character and their talents; but the superiority derived from this source was accompanied with no legal pre-eminence or power.

[Diogenesis]

"George’s parents never changed their citizenship."

Unlikely. Milt Romney helps Obama on this matter,
suggesting Romney is ineligible.

[Scanian]

As usual, people mixing up “citizenship” and “natural born citizenship” in order to muddy the waters.

After the last 2+ years, Americans would be wise to take the STRICTEST POSSIBLE INTERPRETATION of NBC to avoid anything approaching another Obama mess.

That might be hurtful to Romney, Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal but that’s just the way it is.

We need to start taking loyalty and national sovereignty VERY seriously.

If that hurts somebody’s political ambitions well, TOUGH TOENAILS.

[patlin]

Milt Romney helps Obama on this matter, suggesting Romney is ineligible.

You are reading it incorrectly. George Romney was born a US citizen with allegiance exclusively to the US because of the law of nations & treaty with Mexico, the Mexican government did NOT recognize him as one of their own. He was born a foreign national to Mexico even though the event took place on Mexican soil. If the US had denied him citizenship, the he would have been left stateless.

Being a refugee does not take away your citizenship. Under the laws of nations, whatever citizenship you take with you when you travel outside the nation is your citizenship until you attain another. That is why immigrants were/are discouraged from traveling to the countries of their birth citizenship until their US citizenship process is complete. Until it is complete, those immigrants still remain under the jurisdiction of the foreign government. This was never the case for George Romney. Mexico never laid claim to him. He was exclusively a US citizen from birth.

[trumandogz]

“Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States” at birth.”

Not always.

“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.”

George Romney was born in Mexico and was thus considered by Mexico to be a citizen of Mexico. Not only would George Romney be a considered a Mexican citizen, but his children would also be considered children of Mexico.

Therefore, Mexico would consider Mitt Romney to also be a citizen of Mexico.

Can another nation claim Mitt Romney to be a citizen.

Yes.

Is Mitt Romney a natural born US citizen,

Yes.

[Diogenesis]

Just because the article claims Romney is not Mexican
does not mean it is true.

Bishop Romney is not eligible.

[patlin]

you didn’t actually read the article did you?

[trumandogz]

“George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US.”

His parents were hardly being persecuted by the US Government. Instead, the Remney family left the US due to the US laws against polygamy.

Fleeing the US due to polygamy laws is akin to fleeing the US due to our laws against child molestation.

Neither action would provide one with the status of being a refuge.

[trumandogz]

Yes and the article has several vital inaccuracies.

[patlin]

Hey, I’m not a Romney fan, but the law is the law and there was a good reason “natural born” was removed from the US Nationality Act in 1795.

FYI, if Mexico didn’t claim George Romney as a Mexican citizen at the moment of his birth, they could lay no claim to him later in his life. Period. Stick to the facts, not personal feelings. Feelings and emotions are not the law.

[Diogenesis]

You are wrong.

Neither Obama NOR Romney is eligible.

Anyone who pushed(es) them for pRes_ _ent
out be indicted for fraud upon the American people.

[patlin]

inaccuracies? do tell specifically & use the law in place at the time of George Romney’s birth to explain your argument, not what you think it is today for that law of today has no affect on George’s US citizenship or that of his children.

[RegulatorCountry]

Your priorities are admittedly skewed because of personal circumstance.

But, I’ve got to say, even after all your wrongheaded prattle on this issue, I’m shocked to hear anyone on FR say that a citizen of Mexico can be President of the United States.

It’s just not so. It’s the very epitome of a foreign entanglement. Such a President would be legally bound by the laws of Mexico whenever dealing with that nation, and would be subject to arrest and imprisonment if ever setting foot in that nation after going against them in treaty or war.

Clearly untenable for any head of state.

[patlin]

If the Mexican government never claimed the child of US citizens born on their soil as one of their own, then what nation does that child exclusively belong to? Please answer with facts, not emotions.

[Diogenesis]

Obama was born in Kenya.
Romney was born in Mexico.

Obama is a Kenyan.
Not eligible.

Romney is a Mexican.
Not eligible (even before RomneyCARE, RomneyMARRIAGE,
and RomneyBIG-DIG-coverup).

[RegulatorCountry]

Was George Romney a citizen of the United States, by whatever means, at the time of Mitt Romney's birth? If he was, there is no issue in that regard, regardless of where George Romney was born. Was Mitt Romney's mother a citizen of the United States at the time of Mitt Romney's birth as well? And, lastly, was Mitt Romney born in the United States?

If both his parents were citizens at the time of his birth and he was born in the United States, there is no doubt as to his eligibility because he was and is a natural born citizen. If there is question as to citizenship of either parent or he was born outside the sole jurisdiction of the US, then there is doubt. See Minor v. Happersett.

[patlin]

Some like to claim that George Romney was Mexican by the mere fact of his birth on Mexican soil. This is not true. Mexico did not recognize children born to foreigners on Mexican soil as Mexican citizens. Mexican (Spanish & French) citizen law is that of the nature/nations doctrine of “jus sanguinis” and still is today. But those that detest Mitt's policies & politics like to ignore the law at the time of Mitt's dad's birth and use feudal “jus soli” statute law as an argument to keep Mitt off the ballot.

They are no better than Obama, they want to act outside & above the law purely for emotional & political purposes. Like I said, I would never back Romney let alone vote for him, but that does not give me the right to ignore the law that makes him eligible.

[Danae]

I believe Romney is eligible.

Here is why.

George Romney, though being born a dual citizen was still an American because of his parents. George Romney’s son would have been born to an American father and mother. This makes Mitt a Natural Born Citizen.

Take a look of Obama, he was born British because of his father. Obama Jr. daughters were born in the US to two parents who were Americans (assuming OholyO was born in Hawaii) BUT... because of British law, his daughters could APPLY for British Citizenship and get it due to their grandfather’s full British heritage, and that of their own father. But here is the trigger, the crux.. they would have to apply for it, it isn’t automatic like their father’s citizenship - That of OholyO.

This describes Mitt Romney, Mexican Citizenship wasn’t passed on to him automatically, he would have to apply for it. Just like I would have to apply for Mexican Citizenship, but he would have a stronger case of getting it because his father was born in Mexico.

Citizenship issues get real mixed up real fast, and this is why the term “Natural Born Citizenship” was noted diplomatically. There had to be a baseline to start from.

[RegulatorCountry]

There is no reason to debate applicability of foreign law to a potential Presidential candidate’s deceased father.

It all boils down to a simple yes or no question. Was George Romney a citizen of the United States at the time of Mitt Romney’s Birth?

If yes, it’s a complete nonissue. There are other factors that play into the matter, but if his father was a citizen at the time of his birth, that isn’t one of them.

[patlin]

Romney was born Willard Mitt Romney on March 12, 1947 in Detroit, Michigan.

He was the youngest child of George Wilcken Romney who was thus born in Colonia Dublán, Galeana, in the Mexican state of Chihuahua – one of the Mormon colonies in Mexico – on July 8, 1907, to American parents

&

Lenore LaFount Romney who was born in Logan, Utah to Harold Arundel LaFount (1880-1952) and Alma Luella Robison (1882-1938)