Strawman fallacy. Where did I say that Madison was arguing for "natural born citizen" for William Loughton Smith? I have pointed out that Madison argued that the main criterion for allegiance was place, not parents. If the primary criteria is jus soli: "place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States than that would apply to other situations than Mr. Smith. And now I have work to do, so no answers to any other fallacies you may present until this evening.
When you introduced the quote into the topic of "natural born citizen" i.e. Presidential eligibility. It is an implicit aspect of the entire discussion, notwithstanding your attempt to sneak "citizen" under the door as the same thing, and then trying to quote Madison in support of your false equivalency.
I have pointed out that Madison argued that the main criterion for allegiance was place, not parents.
And I keep pointing out to you he immediately invokes the man's "birthright" because of his Ancestors, and point out that though Slaves and Indians meet this criteria, none of them were considered citizens, and then further still, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that "natural born citizen" is not the same thing as "citizen."
If the primary criteria is jus soli: "place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States than that would apply to other situations than Mr. Smith.
No it would not. That is a presumption without support of fact. Mr. Smith most certainly was NOT a "natural born citizen" and neither was Madison. In 1758, Subjectude was determined by both birth to an English Father and by being born on English territory. (The better to cast a wide net for servants, otherwise known as "subjects.") That this was the law when Mr. Smith was born in 1758 does not deal with the fact that for the purpose of American citizenship it was no longer true. (As Madison himself would vote 9 months later.)
And now I have work to do, so no answers to any other fallacies you may present until this evening.
If your arguing ability is any indication of your work product, I would hope that you aren't involved in anything important such as something where lives are at stake. I would certainly not want to be in any building you designed. The first woodpecker that came along would destroy it. In any case, to get one things straight, you proffer fallacies, while I proffer legitimate facts and arguments.