Absolutely not. What I am saying goes to the natural right & natural reason according to natural law and that is what Supreme Court Justice James Wilson(also signer of the Declaration & Constitution) stated in his works on American Law. According to the law, when a man & woman enter into a marriage, the 2 become one. The woman takes the name of the husband as well as what ever allegiance he has. Therefore, the entire household is in unity & happiness under but one allegiance and thus all off-spring shall also be of that allegiance.
When we speak of a child born into the marriage we are speaking of a legitimate child. According to natural law, an illegitimate child at birth has allegiance under the law to the society the mother is a member of. Only when & if the mother & father marry does the child then become legitimated and take the allegiance of the father. Some societies went further & legitimated the child when the mother married any man as according to natural law, the male was to be the provider of the family unit.
I blame a lot of this on the progressive women's movement. But, don't get me wrong, I believe women always had the right to vote in the society in which they were members, but that should have never had anything to do with conferring citizenship under natural law when a child is born in wedlock. This notion was bred by the progressive movement to dumb down citizenship in order to further their agenda of global citizenship & a one world order. They are only a few pen strikes away from completing that part of the agenda. It is up to us to reverse this course and that is why I work so hard at researching to uncover the truth of the law as it was written, not as the progressives would have you think it was written.
If that were true, there could be no such thing as an American citizen man married to a French citizen woman--the French woman would automatically become an American citizen upon marriage. That's not the way it works under current law, however. Do you believe that's a mistake, or a way in which the actual law conflicts with natural law?