Comments on: Liberty or Laws – Immigration or Invasion https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=868 when the government is pointing their guns in the wrong direction Sun, 14 Dec 2014 04:40:46 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.2.4 By: Kyle Rearden https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=868#comment-88800 Mon, 11 Aug 2014 10:08:20 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=868#comment-88800 Chief Justice Waite wrote in 1874 Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) case, “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.” So, no, it cannot be expected that the nation should protects its citizens if that citizenry lacks an allegiance to their nation. This is assuming, of course, that the nation is protecting their citizens in the first place; if not, then it begs the question as to whether the citizenry owes a duty of allegiance to a nation that fails to protect them.

]]>
By: William Reade https://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=868#comment-76354 Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:30:27 +0000 http://outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=868#comment-76354 The Law must be obeyed
It is most imperative that this dissertation start out with the Declaration that nowhere in the powers vested in the President or in Congress Assembled, is the authority to GRANT AMNESTY. The Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) gives the President the power “to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States (not amnesty).
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the authoritative capacity of Congress. Enumerated Powers of the Congress include:
• Collect taxes • Borrow money • Regulate trade • Establish Bankruptcy codes • Coin money • Establish post offices • Provide a military • Provide a militia • Make all necessary and proper laws • Declare War (no power to forgive anything).
The attempts at immigration reform that are being made and advanced by Congress are, at minimum, Unconstitutional, if not criminal. They are predicated on whimsy, wishes, fear, pressures from groups with something to gain, legally or not, and ignorance of all relevant laws.
Our elected officials have asked the question: “Who can be Citizens?”, and they have fabricated an answer that is “TOTALLY” inconsistent with what the founding fathers stated in the first and Third Congress and has been continually expressed in all of the Legislation promulgated since.
It is safe to say that not one of our elected officials has asked: “WHO CANNOT be born a citizen?
FIRST CONGRESS . Sess. II. Chap. 3. 1790 “ Chap. III.
An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”.

The actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states:
“…children of citizens of the United States…shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…” (THIRD CONGRESS Session II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790”.
It is now therefore established, based on undeniable historical fact, from an unquestionable source, who can and who cannot be a citizen.
I am referring to the Definition of a US Citizen, not the birthplace. The place of a person’s birth has little or nothing to do with Citizenship, under international law and treaties the laws of each nation have total and unequivocal authority over the same, i.e. : (S. Res. 511) recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. ———–” [he was not born in the U. S.]. [First Congress, “born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,”]
The First and Third Congress explicitly eliminated being born in the country, as a requirement for citizenship {Jus Soli}, they placed this requirement on the status of the father (parents); citizenship by descent {jus sanguinis}.
“the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. (when their parent [s] became naturalized citizens)

“children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”
The Proviso the founders included in both the First and Second Congress for Parentage conclusively and unequivocally provides for citizenship by descent. {jus sanguinis}. “..Whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”.
The actions presently being demanded by the President, and now being considered by Congress, are absolutely and undeniably unconstitutional, and to lawfully pursue this action, they will need to legally eliminate the Constitutional requirement of parentage by repeal and replacement of provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which STATES:
”1: 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.
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of—–“.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
One of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment’s first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant: “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth, then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant, ergo:
JOHN S. Mc CAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — (Senate – April 30, 2008) [Page: S3645]
“Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 715, S. Res. 511
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 511) recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. ——————”
“Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, §1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.”
FIRST CONGRESS . Sess.II. Chap. 3. 1790
“ Chap. III. — An act to establish an uniform Rule Of Naturalization.(a)
And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”.
Reflecting on the above information we cannot do anything that will violate International Law, or the Sovereign right any Nation has over its citizens.
1. Anyone who is in our country without permission from our State Department is here illegally, and is by definition a criminal and by our laws must be deported. Consequently, to not comply with our own Constitutional laws by one or all of our involved elected and appointed law enforcement officials, is commission of a crime against these United States.

2. We cannot confer citizenship on any individual without their applying or requesting it, and by their formal renouncing of all ties or obligations to the Nation of their Birth. No one in any official capacity can grant United States citizenship to any alien without proper application in accordance with our citizenship, naturalization of aliens’ laws. The President or the Congress, or any other official cannot grant citizenship to any persons, except in accordance with United States Constitutional law. The power of naturalization is Reserved for: Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that sets forth the authoritative capacity of Congress. The Congress shall have Power: To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, …….throughout the United States;
3. Amnesty: In criminal law, a sovereign act of oblivion or forgetfulness (from Greek amnestia, “forgetfulness”) granted by a government, especially to a group of persons who are guilty of (usually political) crimes in the past. It is often conditional upon the group’s return to obedience and duty within a prescribed period. See also PARDON.
4. The power to grant amnesty is not a lawful action of the President or the Congress. The Constitution (Article 2, Section 2) gives the President the power “to grant reprieves and pardons [not amnesty] for offences against the United States except in cases of impeachment.” So if the President grants amnesty it is an Unconstitutional and impeachable Act.
The powers of the President are “carefully limited” and precisely defined by our Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 71 (last para), Alexander Hamilton asks…what would be … feared from an elective magistrate of four years’ duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United States?
The answer to Hamilton’s question is this: There would be nothing to fear if Presidents obeyed the Constitution. But they don’t obey it because the idiots in Congress don’t make them obey it!
Sincerely

WILLIAM F. READE, JR. LTC USA (ret)
Mr. Reade is a graduate of:
California Western University B. S. B. A.
U. of Massachusetts. M. Ed.
Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Security Management Course
The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College

]]>