An open letter to the members of the Congress of the United States of America.

 

We are writing you to ensure that the child of parents who are American citizens that is born overseas while one or both parents are members of the military can be considered as natural born citizens.

 

We accept that Congress has no authority to alter the definition of a natural born citizen, but the way to insure that the children born to our men and women serving in our armed forces overseas are natural born citizens is simple. It does not require neither changes to our Constitution, our federal common law nor to the definitions used the United States Supreme Court, it only takes political will to work within the authority granted to you by our Constitution.

 

After a year long search of pouring over historical documents we are confident that we know both the problem and the solution.

 

We know that Article II, Section 1, clause 5 today restricts the office of the Presidency to only natural born citizens.

 

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

 

We know the intent of our Founding Fathers in drafting Article II, Section 1 was to remove the possibility of foreign influences taking control of our armed forces through the office of Commander in Chief. Both John Jay and Alexander Hamilton have eloquently and forcefully laid out their intent.

 

Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”  John Jay

 

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” Alexander Hamilton

 

We know that our federal common law started with Vattel and the Law of Nations as can be seen by our early Supreme Court Rulings.

 

"When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement." Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796)

 

Since our federal common law starts with Vattel’s Law of Nations it is natural that we look there first to see if the meaning of a natural born citizen can be found that would satisfy the concerns of our Founding Fathers.

 

Lo and behold, we find in Book One, Chapter Nineteen the following,

 

212. Of the citizens and natives. 

 

 “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.

 

We can also see that our Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services states that there are two principles of born citizenship,

 

“A citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection. In addition to the naturalization process, the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood.” From the office of Citizenship and Immigration Services

 

This definition from 212 of the Law of Nations, that the defining characteristics of the birth of a natural born citizen removes the possibility of the transference of foreign citizenship from both jus soli, the location of birth and jus sanguinis, the heritage of birth. It is simple and complete, and it guarantees that the intent of the framers of the Constitution is preserved.

 

Since we accept Vattel as being the source of our federal common law we are free to visit the following that is also found in Book One, Chapter Nineteen,

 

217. Children born in the armies of the state.

 

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.

 

What is important to note here is that Vattel is stating that our men and women in the armed forces are in the service of our country who may find themselves under orders to be abroad, and as such have in principle never left the country because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States of America. This jurisdiction is enforced through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ.

 

We accept that countries can establish there owns laws of citizenship, but that laws made by men cannot take away the birthright that nature has bestowed upon a child. It is in this conflicting forces of the laws of men and of the law of nature that a child may be born as a dual citizen, and have allegiances foreign to the child’s parents yoked upon the child at birth,

 

215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

 

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights ( 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

 

The problem our service men and women face is that some do equate serving them abroad with their families as emigrating from the Unites States of America.

 

224. Emigrants.

 

Those who quit their country for any lawful reason, with a design to settle elsewhere, and take their families and property with them, are called emigrants.

 

225. Sources of their right

 

Their right to emigrate may arise from several sources.

 

1. In the cases we have just mentioned ( 223), it is a natural right, which is certainly reserved to each individual in the very compact itself by which civil society was formed.

 

2. The liberty of emigration may, in certain cases, be secured to the citizens by a fundamental law of the state. The citizens of Neufchatel and Valangin in Switzerland may quit the country and carry off their effects at their own pleasure, without even paying any duties.

 

3. It may be voluntarily granted them by the sovereign.

 

4. This right may be derived from some treaty made with a foreign power, by which a sovereign has promised to leave full liberty to those of his subjects, who, for a certain reason — on account of religion, for instance — desire to transplant themselves into me territories of that power. There are such treaties between the German princes, particularly for cases in which religion is concerned. In Switzerland likewise, a citizen of Bern who wishes to emigrate to Fribourg, and there profess the religion of the place, and, reciprocally, a citizen of Fribourg who, for a similar reason, is desirous of removing to Bern, has a right to quit his native country, and carry off with him all his property.

 

While 217 Children born in the armies of the state, clearly states that they have not emigrated, the solution is found in clause 4 of 225, treaties made. Our own Constitution in Article VI, Clause 2 says that treaties become a part of the supreme law of the land.

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

Utilizing a treaty in such a way is the proper mechanism as under the Law of Nations as both countries are free to enter into a treaty. Utilizing the promise of the removal of our armed forces is proper in order to insure the passage of the treaty, as treaties are the instrument in which nations utilize to insure that harmonious relations are maintained between nations. A nation that has a grievance another nation approaches that nation and states the grievance, and if they are civilized nations, they enter into negotiations to resolve the grievance. The treaty that would result of any negotiations contains the mechanisms that resolve the grievance.

 

The grievance we have is that other nations are yoking the children of our military families who are born overseas with foreign citizenship that produce foreign allegiances which in the language of our Founding Fathers prevents them from being considered natural born citizens.

 

We, the people of the United States of America hereby submit to you, the members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to draft and pass legislation that will require that all new treaties made with countries in which the members of our armed forces will be stationed in to deny the children born on their soil of parents who are both American citizens jus soli citizenship upon the birth of their child. That this legislation will also direct the President of the United States of America to instruct the Secretary of State to renegotiate all treaties made in the past with foreign nations where we now have men and women stationed overseas to include said prohibition of transferring jus soli citizenship at birth to the children born of American parents that are stationed in their territories. The Secretary of State shall also insure those nations that these treaties will only affect the children of two American citizen parents, and not the children born to one of their nationals, even if the other parent is an American citizen serving their country, for it is not right that America interfere with the transfer of citizenship between one nation and those considered nationals of that nation. To instruct the Secretary of State to convey to said nations that refuse to renegotiate said treaty to inform the government of that nation that the United States of America will remove its troops stationed in that nation within one year of formally receiving this request to correct the grievance the United States has in the way the children born to our citizens who are serving their country forced into expected allegiance to that nation.

 

We implore you to pass a law that protects against children being born in enemy territory by mandating that no female, service member or civilian accompanying a service member will be allowed to enter any territories, where hostilities either have commenced or are the commencement of hostilities is imminent, if she is with child. That this law also mandates priority evacuation from territories, where hostilities either have commenced or are the commencement of hostilities is imminent, if she is with child.

 

The result of these treaties will be that the children born to parents of citizens who are in the service of the United States, who are under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, who under federal common law are considered as never leaving the United States, will be born free of foreign claims of allegiance upon their person, and will be considered under our federal common law and the law of nature as natural born citizens if they so present themselves to be examined by a federal court in the United States and thus eligible to run for the office of President of the United States in full compliance of Article II, Section 1, clause 5.

 

We further implore you not to allow the current debate over the status of Barack Hussein Obama, II’s natural born citizenship claim to color your obligation to the brave men and women and their citizen spouses who are serving our great nation abroad so that their valued service is not punished.

 

Respectfully submitted this seventh day of the month of January, in the year 2010,

 

To Bear `,:-) on behalf of theBirthers.org