BIRTH’RIGHT, noun [birth and right.] Any right or privilege, to which a person is entitled by birth, such as an estate descendible by law to an heir, or civil liberty under a free constitution.
CITIZENSHIP, noun The state of being vested with the rights and privileges of a citizen.
The term “birthright citizenship” is intentionally used to try to convince you of the legitimacy of the narrative they are pushing. The problem with their phrase is that their contrived definition denies natural law. Since citizenship is inherited from the parent, an accurate definition of birthright citizenship is “a right of citizenship descendible to the child from that child’s parent.”
This natural law is clearly spelled by Vattel in his Law of Nations:
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)
Emmerich de Vattel
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19: Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
212. 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; (emphasis added) 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. (emphasis added)
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. 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; (emphasis added)
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.
Thus by natural law, their definition of birthright citizenship is nonsensical and in direct contradiction to natural law.
We see this understanding of natural law citizenship inheritance reaffirmed by our Founders right after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. David Ramsay, often called the historian of the American Revolution, reiterated this in his 1789 dissertation:
A DISSERTATION ON THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES OF A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.
PRINTED IN THE YEAR MDCCLXXXIX. David Ramsay
4th. None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not of American citizens.
Citizenship bestowed at birth is confined to the children of those who were themselves citizens. The place of birth does not change this inheritance, and if the child is born to a non-citizen, it is only the child’s place of birth and not their country.
This understanding was reaffirmed again by the 14th Amendment: “All persons born…in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The requirement here, for a child to be born a citizen, is the place of birth plus the citizenship of the parents. A person who is not an American citizen can be deported because they are subject to a foreign jurisdiction. Conversely, and American citizen cannot be deported because they subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Countries that chose not to follow the natural law did so for obvious reasons. The British laws at the time of the American Revolution declared every child born to a British subject, and every child born in any place under British rule, to be British subjects. The most obvious point to be made here is that these people were considered to be owned by the British king. This contradictory policy claimed the maximum number of humans that could be claimed for Britain. This was not an attempt to give a gift, but to capture a resource. The British government tried to maximize their human resources and then tried to maximize what they could extract from them.
The decades leading up the American Revolutionary War were filled with British attempts to tax and control their subject here in America and the colonists defending their natural rights. The continued abuses on the colonists by a government that view them as property drove the colonists to rebel and declare their independence from Britain.
Our current uniparty government in America has taken on the same mindset. They continue to look for ways to pile on more national debt, steal through inflation, and assert their right to tax us as they see fit. They have declared us to be a mere resource of theirs to use and abuse.
On this 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence let us throw off the chains of the two-party system mindset and declare ourselves to be Citizens and not merely subjects to the uniparty.