Harris, Haley, and Ramaswamy Cannot Be President

There is no deception. Jus soli is commonly referred to as "birthright citizenship" in current parlance,...

No. You don't get to define the premise of the debate. Birthright citizenship means citizenship obtained through the circumstances of birth, and you want to claim it means "soil", while I claim it means "blood."

As Alexander McLeod noted, being born in the church doesn't make you a member.

You have also characterized "jus soli" as uniquely English, even though there are far more countries in the Americas who practice it despite having no English inheritance.

I do not know what are the roots of it in South America, but Mexico is likely influenced by what was believed here, and at the moment we don't know how far back their adherence to Jus Soli extends. It may be a relatively recent phenomena, because it was uncommon in the European countries (except for England) that colonized central and south America.

The bottom line is this: to be considered a citizen by virtue of being born with the jurisdiction of a country does not require said country to be a monarchy; it is a concept which holds with or without monarchy.

Now. But you are trying to ignore it's origins. It's roots are monarchy.

The written opinion of one Presbyterian minister = "a lot of people"?

You forgot about David J. Seipp's comment too? Add to that the instructions from the Pennsylvania legislature regarding the British laws in effect, and you've got three. A quick check of other sources would show you these attitudes were not the exception but were instead the rule.

Citizenship, I would argue, is not an inherent law of nature, because it is something which exists *outside of nature*;

You need to do some more reading on "natural law." You clearly aren't grasping the belief system upon which this nation was founded.

I would have thought some poking about in Rex Lex would have helped you see the world through their eyes.

You asserted "jus soli" as being inherently linked with the common law; it is not...

You were going to cite me a statute or something? You've said a lot since then, but none of it is pointing out a statute.

...even though it is practiced by countries that are not monarchies.

Let's try to keep some accuracy, "even though it is practiced by countries that are *NO LONGER* monarchies."

no one is *inherently* a citizen of anything just by virtue of their own existence, since human life is prior in principle before their relations to a nation.

What is a tribe?

Whether they be citizen by soil or citizen by blood, they still possess all of the rights and privileges of American citizenship at the moment of birth.

And you said that you aren't claiming adoption equals birth. You are very much claiming that it does.

But you are wrong here. I have pointed out Rogers v Bellei before, and that alone should demonstrate to you that not all citizens at birth are created equal.

Natural citizens cannot lose citizenship because they failed some residency requirement, or some other requirement specified congress in creating their naturalization act.

This is a categorical error, since men and women differ in kind by reason of biological fact (by nature itself, you could say).

But "the LAW" says they don't. This is just more proof of my point that "the LAW" and reality are often at odds. Reality is the hard rock against which the law breaks.

A society, however it governs itself and its inhabitants, are in principle capable of choosing the means by which said inhabitants can be considered citizens, and what conditions may be required for one to be deemed a citizen automatically by reason of birth.

They can adopt. They cannot through law, make something true which is not true.

This is because citizenship is not a permanent aspect of human nature in the way that sex is.

I disagree. You are born into your tribe, and you have inherently natural responsibilities to it, and it to you.

Adopting members from outside your tribe is possible, but requires an act of naturalization.

People don't become part of your tribe by being born among you.

If you cease to be a citizen of any given country — or even if you refuse to become a citizen at ALL ...

Someone else will decide what you are.

Precedents that stand for over a hundred years do not become weaker precedents but stronger.

Logical folly. I believe they even have a name for it. Argumentum ad antiquitatum.

People can believe wrong things for a long time. Hundreds, if not thousands of years. This does not make the wrong thing true, just entrenched.

The U.S. Supreme Court cannot be expected to know what only your Court of the Imagination™ knows.

I did not imagine the evidence supporting Vattel as the source of the meaning of "natural born citizen." I and others found it. It existed prior to us, and is therefore not of us, but instead it is part of the fabric of reality.

Even the Supreme court noted it's existence in Minor v Happersett, as we have previously discussed.

Hearsay. A term appled to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally, but what others have told him.

EXACTLY!!! Now apply the idea to judges a hundred years or so away from the actual events in question. What have you got? "Hearsay."

What befuddles me is how stealthily you made believe that you did not see the part about the usage of the term natural born citizen in 1784, three years before the Constitutional Convention. I take that back.

You are going to have to get more specific before I can understand what you mean well enough to respond to it.

If you say so, but let's check out a more complete quote for full context.

...and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges.

Your fuller context adds nothing of value or interest to your argument. Saying someone will be treated like and regarded as a "citizen" doesn't actually make them a citizen. It still doesn't say they are "natural born citizens."

But it would be interesting to see if this law passed by Maryland would indeed make the descendants of the Marquis de la Fayette US citizens today.

Probably wouldn't hold up, but I would jolly well like to see it tried!

The Naturalization Act of 1790 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:

Just asking for a friend, does the 1790 Act only state that the government would pretend that such persons are natural born citizens, that such persons are not really natural born citizens, and that such persons (e.g., McCain, Cruz) are not really eligible to be President?

I would guess that the governments of that era would not recognize them as sufficiently "natural born" as to allow them to be President.

Especially that part about the Father, regarding Senator Cruz. Even Wong Kim Ark court has a problem with that.

Again, just asking for a friend. Does a naturalization actually create a citizen, or is it just pretend?

It creates an adopted citizen.

Did William, John and George actually become a citizens? If they were only became pretend citizens, did their children inherit real or pretend citizenship?

Well let's look at the text and see what it says, shall we?

...upon their taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration required by the constitution of this Commonwealth, before two Justices of the Peace, shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth

Well there you have it. "Deemed", "adjudged, and "taken to be."

"Regarded as", also works. But in this case, it's an adoption, because clearly they were not citizens before.

Perhaps the term, shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be may be boiler plate language of naturalization documents, used for years and years.

Exactly what I have been saying. All these examples are adoptions.

No. You don't get to define the premise of the debate.

How is pointing out that "birthright citizenship" is commonly used currently (especially in the modern American context) to specifically refer to "jus soli" equivalent to "defining the terms of the debate"? You accused me of engaging in deception, and I told you why I wasn't. That you disagree with the common parlance of an issue for whatever reason does not mean the common parlance doesn't exist. Any perusal of people (learned or otherwise) in the modern day, who uses the term "birthright citizenship", is generally referring to "jus soli"; nothing more and nothing less. No need to get so bent out of shape about it.

As Alexander McLeod noted, being born in the church doesn't make you a member.

And just like with citizenship, one is not inherently part of a church by nature either.

I do not know what are the roots of it in South America, but Mexico is likely influenced by what was believed here

"Likely influenced" based on what evidence?

Now. But you are trying to ignore it's origins. It's roots are monarchy.

There are lot of things with origins in monarchy, believe it or not. (The jury system itself, for example; maybe we should chuck that out as well?) But this means precisely bupkis against the fundamental reality that, in and of itself, the principle of "jus soli" is applicable without reference to any monarchy whatsoever. You are trying to impugn a concept for something accidental, and not essential to its very definition.

You need to do some more reading on "natural law." You clearly aren't grasping the belief system upon which this nation was founded.

Is citizenship a fundamental quality of human nature: yes or no?

I would have thought some poking about in Rex Lex would have helped you see the world through their eyes.

That I can see the world through their eyes does not make my disagreement with their apparent understanding of natural law, insofar as citizenship is concerned, any less profound. A quality that is contingent on the behavior or action of another person beyond yourself cannot be something you can claim as a human right in any logical sense of the term.

Let's try to keep some accuracy, "even though it is practiced by countries that are *NO LONGER* monarchies."

"Jus sanguinus" dominates in European countries that were empires and monarchies much more recently than any such monarchies in the Americas (there hasn't been a proper one in Central and South America, as far as I'm aware, since the 19th century), so your fixation on monarchy — as though that's the sole dividing factor between a country choosing "jus soli" versus "jus sanguinus" — strikes me as disproportionate. Or do you truly think that monarchical influence is the most important factor driving a country to choose "jus soli"?

What is a tribe?

A family, race, or series of generations, descending from the same progenitor and kept distinct from another class of people.

And you said that you aren't claiming adoption equals birth. You are very much claiming that it does.

In your own mind, apparently.

But you are wrong here. I have pointed out Rogers v Bellei before, and that alone should demonstrate to you that not all citizens at birth are created equal.

The most ironic thing about that case was that Bellei had been born outside of America's jurisdiction to an American mother and an Italian father, so the only form of citizenship at play there was "jus sanguinus", not "jus soli". But that's apparently some kind of 'gotcha'?

Reality is the hard rock against which the law breaks.

And citizenship is not a fundamental aspect of human nature, so I don't know why you keep harping about "reality vs law". Citizenship is, fundamentally, a creature of law: not reality.

They cannot through law, make something true which is not true.

You seem to be of the opinion that citizenship obtained through one's father is some sort of metaphysical ideal against which "citizenship by soil" is some sort of arbitrary sham, even though the very notion of "citizen" — what it is, what its corresponding duties are (if any), and who can be one — is something that has varied in definition based on time and place. A relationship between a person and a sociopolitical entity (which is but one category that citizenship belongs to) is hardly something of a primordial nature, precisely because it is not a universal. The right to life is universal, inherent to all humans; citizenship is not.

People don't become part of your tribe by being born among you.

Good thing we're not talking about tribes, eh?

Alexander McLeod is of no legal authority whatever. He was a minister, not a lawyer. He was entitled to his non-expert opinion. He is not citable as legal authority.

William Lewis was never on a Federal appellate court and thus never had any authority set any federal precedent.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges reviewed British statutes, not British common law. They neither reviewed, or did they throw out any common law.

[DiogenesLamp #346] Jus Soli is monarchical in nature. It is inherently monarchical. Let me give you an idea of what one contemporary thought of it. . . . Alexander Mcleod, d.d. (1815)

Contemporary?

The common law origin of jus soli begins with the case of Elyas de Rababyn (1290) II Rotuli Parliamentorum 139 where it was assumed that all persons born on English soil were subjects of the King.

It is far better known in common law in Calvin v. Smith, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K.B. 1608).

Jus soli existed in the colonies, and later in the states. It is the law of the United States today, without exception or limitation.

Jus soli was largely abandoned in Britain with the British Nationality Law of 1981. There is limited jus soli in the United Kingdom for foreign nationals resident in the UK for three years or more before the birth of the child.

Precedents that stand for over a hundred years do not become weaker precedents but stronger.
Logical folly. I believe they even have a name for it. Argumentum ad antiquitatum.

The Law of the Imagination™ strikes again.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Ruling for over two centuries.

The U.S. Supreme Court cannot be expected to know what only your Court of the Imagination™ knows.
I did not imagine the evidence supporting Vattel as the source of the meaning of "natural born citizen." I and others found it. It existed prior to us, and is therefore not of us, but instead it is part of the fabric of reality.
Even the Supreme court noted it's existence in Minor v Happersett, as we have previously discussed.

The Law of the Imagination™ strikes again. In Minor, citizenship was never an issue. The natural born citizenship of Virginia Minor was a fact stipulated by both parties. Both parties stipulated that Virginia Minor was qualified to vote in every way but sex. You are king of the meaningless dicta.

Vattel did not imagine anything about the United States or its laws. Corpses lack imagination.

Hearsay. A term appled to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally, but what others have told him.
EXACTLY!!! Now apply the idea to judges a hundred years or so away from the actual events in question. What have you got? "Hearsay."

No, hearsay appears in testimony. What we have here is just your typical baseless bull(flop). In your Law of the Imagination™, the rule of hearsay applies to non-testimony, but only because you didn't know what the word meant. Such is the extent of your legal acumen. A precedent setting Court opinion is hearsay—what a concept.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Hearsay. A term applied to that species of testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally, but what others have told him. A statement, other than one by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. fed.R.Evid. 801(c). …

What befuddles me is how stealthily you made believe that you did not see the part about the usage of the term natural born citizen in 1784, three years before the Constitutional Convention. I take that back.
You are going to have to get more specific before I can understand what you mean well enough to respond to it.

If you don't understand the significance of the term usage three years before its usage in the Constitution, I doubt I have the skill to explain it to you in a manner you would understand. I will leave you to your Law of the Imagination™. That reveals all like a magic eight-ball.

Perhaps the term, shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be may be boiler plate language of naturalization documents, used for years and years.

Exactly what I have been saying. All these examples are adoptions.

So, perhaps a majority of persons born in Massachusetts are not citizens, and their children are not citizens, and they are just a bunch of non-citizen non-aliens. The horror!

1790 Naturalization Act made no citizens. Massachusetts naturalization did not make citizens. Direct naturalization by the legislature did not make an individual a citizen. And if they were pretend citizens, and you do not recognize jus soli, their children were pretend citizens, down through the generations until the present time. Talk about voter fraud.

[DiogenesLamp #330] "natural born citizen" is an act of God

I seem to recall making a natural born citizen and hearing oh god, oh god.

Now if two naturalized fake citizens engaged in an act of god, would the product of that divine act inherit fake citizenship?

Would the child of two pretend citizens acquire birthright citizenship via jus soli?

What is the purpose of naturalization if it does not make any citizens? Is it just so the subject can pretend to be a citizen?

For a presidential candidate, does it matter if his parents are real or pretend citizens?

This Law of the Imagination™ is entertaining, if nothing else.

You need to do some more reading on "natural law." You clearly aren't grasping the belief system upon which this nation was founded.

The U.S. legal system is derived from the English common law legal system. When you find a natural law court, tell us all about it.

As a matter of law, natural law isn't. God's law does not enter the legal system either. For citizenship, international law (the law of nations) does not enter into it.

Since the United States was founded, the law of citizenship has been jus soli for domestic births and jus sanguinis for births abroad.

The Founders and Framers didn't know any better. The had lived with English common law all their time in the realms of the king.

The belief system upon which the nation was built was not enacted into law. The words of the law were enacted into law. Unlike the law made up of words, the Law of the Imagination™ is composed of vague ideas which come and go and morph.

The Constitution, ratified by the people, empowered the Congress to make an uniform rule of naturalization. The Imaginator™ has deemed and adjudged that subjects of naturalization are taken to be pretend citizens. But the question for the courts is what was the interpretation of the words by the people when the people ratified the provision as written. Is naturalization properly construed as the making of pretend citizens?

[DiogenesLamp #364] Saying someone will be treated like and regarded as a "citizen" doesn't actually make them a citizen. It still doesn't say they are "natural born citizens."

What does it take to for a sovereign state to make one a citizen of that sovereign state? Hypothetically, would a declarative statement such as, "is hereby declared to be a citizen" do it? In the Law of the Imagination™, what would be the magic words?

Were there any words that a free, sovereign and independent pre-Constitution state could use to naturalize a person into a citizen of said state?

Prior to the Constitution, all States were, by the terms of the Articles, free, sovereign and independent. Naturalization was a State function, each with its own set of rules. Does the Law of the Imagination™ consider all pre-Constitution naturalizations null and void?

As the State was the sovereign, what higher power prevented the sovereign State from naturalizing one of its residents into a citizen of the State?

Because what "birthright citizenship" actual means is the heart and core of this discussion.

That you disagree with the common parlance of an issue for whatever reason does not mean the common parlance doesn't exist.

And just like with citizenship, one is not inherently part of a church by nature either.

The notion that a child's association with parents who are members of a church or a nation conveys no sense of loyalty to such an institution any more than parents who are *NOT* members of a church or nation, is false on the face of it.

"Likely influenced" based on what evidence?

Not a topic I care enough about to bother investigating.

There are lot of things with origins in monarchy, believe it or not. (The jury system itself, for example; maybe we should chuck that out as well?)

Given the absolutely sh*tty horrible results we have been seeing from juries of complete idiots, liars, and those with agendas such as the Derick Chauvin jury, perhaps we should indeed.

But this means precisely bupkis against the fundamental reality that, in and of itself, the principle of "jus soli" is applicable without reference to any monarchy whatsoever.

It is now but at it's origins, it is completely attached to monarchy. It's very philosophy is feudalism.

Years ago, many of us debated this topic quite a lot and a lot of freepers found the references to bound to the land feudal law and posted them. I've read a lot of this material 10 years ago, but it would be harder to find it now because it would be just me looking for it rather than the dozens or so of people who looked for it back in 2009.

Is citizenship a fundamental quality of human nature: yes or no?

Tribalism is, and citizenship is just an iteration of that. So yes.

That I can see the world through their eyes does not make my disagreement with their apparent understanding of natural law, insofar as citizenship is concerned, any less profound.

Disagree with their philosophy all you want, but don't pretend their philosophy was not embraced by the founders and utilized as the framework of what we have now.

Or do you truly think that monarchical influence is the most important factor driving a country to choose "jus soli"?

It was in England. All else followed Roman law. When are we going to get to Calvin's case?

A family, race, or series of generations, descending from the same progenitor and kept distinct from another class of people.

And how is that distinctly different from Citizenship?

This is incorrect. Our system has always been patrilineal, not matrilineal, *EXCEPT* in the case of out of wedlock births. *ONLY* the father matters, and for evidence, I point you to the Naturalization act of 1794 which is posted somewhere up thread. It prohibits citizenship being transferred by non-resident fathers.

You seem to be of the opinion that citizenship obtained through one's father is some sort of metaphysical ideal against which "citizenship by soil" is some sort of arbitrary sham,

Pretty much, except it wasn't arbitrary. It was calculated. Are we ready to get into Calvin's Case yet? There lies the sham.

Good thing we're not talking about tribes, eh?

It is all we are talking about. "Tribe" is just a small nation. Even the root of Nation is "nat", which means "of birth."

Alexander McLeod is of no legal authority whatever. He was a minister, not a lawyer. He was entitled to his non-expert opinion. He is not citable as legal authority.

Wasn't citing him as a legal authority, was sighting him as an example of popular sentiment of the era. The entire nation was pretty pissed at the British for grabbing our sailors on the basis of "jus soli" back in this time period.

William Lewis was never on a Federal appellate court and thus never had any authority set any federal precedent.

That's a dodge. He was someone who knew what the founders intended in Philadelphia of 1787 because he was there, and later part of the doings to ratify the Constitution. He was also in close contact with the members of the Pennsylvania Supreme court, who were also there, and also involved in creating and ratifying the constitution.

He knows a lot more about it than your Wong Kim Ark judges.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges reviewed British statutes, not British common law. They neither reviewed, or did they throw out any common law.

They threw out that Jus Soli, which if it is not part of common law, please be so kind as to point out the English statute from which it came.

The common law origin of jus soli begins with the case of Elyas de Rababyn ...

Wait. Didn't you just say jus soli wasn't common law?

... (1290) Rotuli Parliamentorum 139 where it was assumed that all persons born on English soil were subjects of the King.

There is that feudal possessiveness again. But it wasn't set in concrete just yet. Calvin's case was not unanimous, and so we can tell that some judges disagreed, even though it was quite clear the *KING* wanted and needed the ruling he got from the other judges. Despite the pressure brought to bear, some didn't agree with jus soli in Calvin's case.

As for more evidence this jus soli stuff wasn't quite solid...

And lest you think i'm trying to fool you some way or other...

It is far better known in common law in Calvin v. Smith, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K.B. 1608).

Yes it was, and we are finally getting to Calvin's case. This decision was a political necessity dressed up in a costume of "legal" appearance.

Jus soli existed in the colonies, and later in the states.

Till 1776, at which time we all became "citizens." Some states continued to adhere to jus soli through custom or whatever, but federally, jus sanguinus was the standard the founders meant by "natural born citizen."

It is the law of the United States today, without exception or limitation.

It is what ignorant courts *declare* to be the law, but that is not the same thing as the truth.

Jus soli was largely abandoned in Britain with the British Nationality Law of 1981.

Even they realized this is a stupid way to decide citizenship.

The Law of the Imagination™ strikes again.

Yes, that is exactly what I have been trying to tell you. Adherence to "precedent", with no grasp of first principles or original intent, *IS* the "Law of Imagination."

It's what Judges imagine the law is, and the rest of us are forced to live within their imaginations.

Vattel did not imagine anything about the United States or its laws.

I am flattered that such an educated man as yourself has chosen me to educate you further. :)

Vattel. Law of Nations. (1758)
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 1
Of Nations or Sovereign States

§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfill engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

Vattel put the very idea into their heads.

No, hearsay appears in testimony.

Which is what Judges do when they presume to tell the rest of us what something *THEY THEMSELVES* never heard first hand, means.

Their *OPINIONS* are nothing but hearsay. They are the "Law of imagination" that you keep going on about.

Because what "birthright citizenship" actual means is the heart and core of this discussion.

Just as long as you're aware that I was not deceiving you because of my use of the common parlance that you disagree with.

*image of quote misattributed to Marcus Aurelius*

This quote is essentially the "ad hominem fallacy", since it says nothing about the truth content of said opinion. An opinion held out of ignorance can nonetheless be true, whilst the opinion of a man who knows all there is to know about a topic can nonetheless be false (due to some other aspects not related to their knowledge on a given topic, such as their worldview or philosophical outlook).

Now you're switching gears. Where have I ever spoken about loyalty? The topic has been citizenship (because I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of citizens — even those who hold it due to "jus sanguinus" alone — who hold not a shred of loyalty to the country they belong to). Loyalty is not an inherent quality of human nature: the scenario you describe regarding loyalties is one of difference in degree, but not in kind.

Given the absolutely sh*tty horrible results we have been seeing from juries of complete idiots, liars, and those with agendas such as the Derick Chauvin jury, perhaps we should indeed.

Be careful what you wish for. As you yourself stated in a recent thread: "...that would require a competent intelligent judge and we have a big shortage of those in this country."

Tribalism is, and citizenship is just an iteration of that. So yes.

I sincerely disagree on this point; a direct blood relation as noted within a tribe is different not in degree, but in kind, from the sociopolitical relation that is citizenship. A father, by nature, can exercise certain duties insofar as his family is concerned because of his inherent authority; however, he cannot by nature exercise that same sort of role or influence over those who are not of his blood (which citizens are capable of doing through the legislative and judicial levers of society), because such powers and duties are not inherently his own.

And how is that distinctly different from Citizenship?

See above. A member of my family (i.e. my tribe) is someone who, by virtue of my direct blood relation, is one with inherent duties, responsibilities, or authorities dependent upon the kind of my particular blood relation (as the relation between a brother and a brother is different by nature from that of a father to his son, for example). However, not only are the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a citizen different depending on what country you live in, but some classes of people (depending on time or place) weren't even allowed to be classed as citizens at all! That should suffice by itself to show that the natural ties among family cannot be equivalent in kind to the sociopolitical ties among citizens. They are essentially different things; the former is held by nature, the latter is held only by way of contingency, and hence not by nature.

So, perhaps a majority of persons born in Massachusetts are not citizens, and their children are not citizens, and they are just a bunch of non-citizen non-aliens. The horror!

You will have to ask your strawman how he arrived at that conclusion, because you certainly can't get there from anything I said.

1790 Naturalization Act made no citizens. Massachusetts naturalization did not make citizens.

You are going in a very strange direction here. I disagree. Naturalization makes "naturalized" citizens. It doesn't make "natural" citizens.

Is the difference between "natural born" and "naturalized" so difficult for you to grasp?

Direct naturalization by the legislature did not make an individual a citizen.

See? You are somehow hearing things i'm not saying. "Naturalization" makes "naturalized" citizens. It doesn't make "natural born" citizens, hence the need for the monkey language of "adjudged", "taken to be", regarded as"...

This Law of the Imagination™ is entertaining, if nothing else.

You certainly seemed to have been entertained by your own imagination, but you didn't have any help from me but what you dreamed up yourself.

The U.S. legal system is derived from the English common law legal system.

The boring, routine, drudgery of ordinary legal doings was derived from English common law, but the core essential of American law is based upon a very different foundation than that the King Rules by Divine Right.

The exceptional aspects of American law comes from "natural law" and the rights of man based on it.

Since the United States was founded, the law of citizenship has been jus soli for domestic births and jus sanguinis for births abroad.

So you would have us believe, but the evidence I have shown you in these threads demonstrate that your position is but one opinion from two possible options, and the evidence for your position appears to be weaker.

The Founders and Framers didn't know any better. The had lived with English common law all their time in the realms of the king.

Common Law doesn't deal with "citizens", it deals with subjects. When they left the British monarchy's laws, they left behind that aspect of British common law.

Where did they get this word "citizen"? They got it from Vattel. There is no other more obvious source for it than him.

The belief system upon which the nation was built was not enacted into law.

You are like the fish that doesn't believe in water because he is so surrounded in it he can't see it.

Unlike the law made up of words, the Law of the Imagination™ is composed of vague ideas which come and go and morph.

In whatever manner the Judges dictate. Yes, it's been a long term problem for this nation.

The Constitution, ratified by the people, empowered the Congress to make an uniform rule of naturalization.

There's that "naturalization" word again.

The Imaginator™ has deemed and adjudged that subjects of naturalization are taken to be pretend citizens.

Naturalized citizens are naturalized citizens. This makes them not "natural born" citizens.

Is naturalization properly construed as the making of pretend citizens?

Adopted citizens. Not "natural born" citizens.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.