Adrian Nash, of the h2ooflife Blog, and frequent commenter here, has written a new post, and here are a few excerpts:
Martians, Koreans, Kangaroos, and Natural Citizens
No animal or human that ever lived was born as a member of its parents’ group and species because of where it was born. It’s nature and membership are, and always have been, organic and automatic by the immutable laws of life.
An example is the Kangaroo. Is an infant kangaroo a member of the kangaroo family because it was born in Australia? But all kangaroos are born in Australia so that fact must be central in determining its species, right? That couldn’t be more absurd. Where kangaroos are born is merely incidental to the concurrent fact that they are the product of kangaroo parents. Two facts: one is determinative and the other is irrelevant. But some argue that the law of natural membership doesn’t exist, or doesn’t apply in a sociological & political relationship fashion as it does with humans in regard to their family membership.
If the Mars crew was composed of Americans, and some of the women were impregnated by Martian men, what would be the nature of their off-spring if born in the United States after returning to Earth? Would they be natural born Earthlings? Would they be natural born humans? Would they be natural born Americans? Or something else…-something different?
Barack Obama is just such an alien-like child. His father was not a North American. He was not an American citizen. He was not an America immigrant. He was a non-immigrant alien, and as such, even if one considers his off-spring to be blessed with U.S. citizenship thanks to the 14th Amendment, one cannot defend nor logically propose the idea that such a person could father a wholly natural member of American society, and a wholly natural born citizen of the United States anymore than Earthlings could give birth to natural Martians or Martians could give birth to natural humans.
If a Martian couple, with the female pregnant, were to come to Earth with the crew, and she gave birth in America, would her child be a natural born American citizen, or something else? According to our insane national policy it would an American citizen, but that would not make it a natural citizen because that is something that law can’t produce.
Only nature can do that via parents who are members of the country and nation when their child is born. Only the Law of natural membership can produce natural members, -not human law. All it can do is produce legal members, and that is all that Obama is.
What Mr. Nash argues for is a more logical basis for citizenship than place of birth. That isn’t necessarily a bad argument, but it is simply not the current state of American law. Almost two years ago I wrote a post which directly addressed this point and which cited an 1898 American Law Review article written shortly after the Wong Kim Ark case was decided. To make it easier to copy and paste, I have transcribed most of page 8 into text:
But the error the dissent apparently falls into is that it does not recognize that the United States, as a sovereign power, has the right to adopt any rule of citizenship it may see fit, and that the rule of international law does not furnish, ex proprie vigore [of its own force], the sole and exclusive test of citizenship of the United States, however superior it may be deemed to the rule of the common law. It further does not give sufficient weight, in interpreting the 14th Amendment, to the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.
With respect to the superiority of the international law doctrine over that of the common law, it may be conceded that while the rule of international law, that the political status of children follows that of the father, and of the mother, when the child is illegitimate, may be more logical and satisfactory than that of the common law, which makes the mere accidental place of birth the test, still if the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of the common law doctrine, it is difficult to see what valid objection can be raised thereto, nor how the subject of citizenship of the United States can be deemed to be governed by the rule of international law in the absence of an express adoption of that rule, any more than it could be governed by the law of France, or of China.
It was only an eight page article, and it is reproduced in image form here:
The author of that article, Marshall B. Woodworth, actually agreed with Mr. Nash that using parentage was preferable to using place of birth. However, unlike Mr. Nash and all the other two citizen parent Birthers, Woodworth also recognized the actual state of the law. And, in these lines from above,
the doctrine which was prevalent in the country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the amendment in question, which was undoubtedly that of the common law, and not of international law.
Woodworth also recognized that common law controlled the question, not something like Vattel’s The Law of Nations. And what was that common law??? From Wong Kim Ark:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Nothing there about any two-citizen parents requirement. Which all leads back to questions I once posed to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Why don’t you just admit that Obama was and is legally eligible for the office? Why don’t you just admit that there currently is no two-citizen parent requirement? Then, why don’t you work to change the law?
I submit the same questions to Mr. Nash.
Note 1. The Image. This is the cast of Captain Kangaroo, about which Wiki says:
Captain Kangaroo was an American children’s television series which aired weekday mornings on the American television network CBS for nearly 30 years, from October 3, 1955 until December 8, 1984, making it the longest-running nationally broadcast children’s television program of its day. In 1986, the American Program Service (now American Public Television, Boston) integrated some newly produced segments into reruns of past episodes, distributing the newer version of the series until 1993.
The show was conceived and the title character played by Bob Keeshan, who based the show on “the warm relationship between grandparents and children.” Keeshan had portrayed the original Clarabell the Clown on The Howdy Doody Show when it aired on NBC. Captain Kangaroo had a loose structure, built around life in the “Treasure House” where the Captain (the name “kangaroo” came from the big pockets in his coat) would tell stories, meet guests, and indulge in silly stunts with regular characters, both humans and puppets.
This show was before my time, but I think I must have had some videotapes, because the Dancing Bear really seems familiar. And for all the Birthers, I present:
Note 2. The Image Easter Egg. For ESLs, Mr. Green Jeans was a regular character on the show, and Martians are often presented as Little Green Men, sooo it was just a silly word play about the alleged Martian children in the Image.