I understand that you are trying to pervert the Constitution of the United States - a document I defended for 20+ years in uniform and attempting to do as a civilian. You have no authority and you have no idea of what you are talking about. You make up laws that suit your agenda. You are an empty lantern. And you are a fool. You do not know what I know, You are not familiar with my arguments, yet you believe you understand enough to discuss this topic. You know not, and know not that you know not.
As far as anchor babies, they may or not be qualified because their parents are here illegally - that is a matter to be decided. It was never an issue in the 1700’s. When a man like Madison himself says “born of the soil is the law of the United States,” and not some off the wall Vattel crap, that sort of makes you a liar doesn’t it?
You Presume to speak for Madison. He first says that Had South Carolina had a law regarding citizenship, this question would never have to be addressed by the Congress. The implicit point here is that a positive law trumps custom. He then goes into a long explanation about how Mr. Smith's family were among the first settlers, and his inheritance is in South Carolina. The salient point which you do not have the wit to comprehend is that Mr. Madison is arguing a Jus Sanguinus claim for his citizenship.
Another thing, genius, at least 20% of American citizens at the time of the Revolution were Loyalists, never supported the revolution much less shed blood for it, yet were eligible to be the president.
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of American History. The loyalists suffered greatly here in the United States. Many of them ended up fleeing to Canada because of the discrimination they faced from those who backed the U.S. Others went back to England.
The way I was raised, if you had a beef with someone or criticized someone you did it to his face like a man, not a coward. You belittled Mr Rogers, a patriot, yet you didn’t include him to read your stupid remarks. Nice!
Mr Rogers is an obsessed, passion driven nut who keeps putting out the same drivel regardless of what evidence is presented to him which contradicts it. He has been barbecued by opposing facts so many times people are sick of looking at his sh*t. Mr. Rogers has a personal interest in believing what he believes. You, on the other hand, are just an ignorant fool who believes crap that people have told you.
Grow Up! Research this stuff yourself! Quit listening to what you've been told, figure out the truth! Here, i'll give you some help! Back in 1844, a New York Court ruled that because the State of New York did not have a citizenship law, they would use English Common law to decide that a child born in New York of an English father was an American citizen.
In 1845, the legislature of the state of New York responded by creating a citizenship law. Guess what? It prevents the children of transient aliens from being citizens!
So okay genius, if your understanding of American law is correct, How did the state of New York Exclude the children of Transient Aliens from citizenship? What happened to your "born on the soil" theory?
"How did the state of New York exclude the children of Transient Aliens from citizenship? What happened to your "born on the soil" theory?" Your own evidence rules YOUR crapola out! Thanks, I never saw this. The state of NY says "All persons born in this state and domiciled within it except children of transient (and diplomatic) aliens are citizens."
I take that to mean that resident aliens bestow upon their children citizenship and that means natural-born citizenship. NY by excluding transient/diplomatic aliens will help us not honoring anchor babies….an issue I was ALWAYS against.
Aliens who are here legally and reside here can produce NBC children as WKA affirms; that would make Rubio NBC! It also makes OBOMA NBC because his father was not a transient but a resident.
You should look up the word “transient” in the dictionary and you will find: “One that is transient, especially a hotel guest or boarder who stays for only a brief time. Remaining in a place only a brief time: transient laborers.” Foreign soldiers would also fall into this category.
The loyalists suffered greatly here in the United States. Many of them ended up fleeing to Canada because of the discrimination they faced from those who backed the U.S. Others went back to England.
Am I to feel sorry for these loyalists? You are all over the place! Makes no difference to me how they suffered but in the language of the Constitution, they were still eligible to run for president if they had citizenship.
The salient point which you do not have the wit to comprehend is that Mr. Madison is arguing a Jus Sanguinus claim for his citizenship.
Madison went on to vouch for Mr. Smith’s family AFTER he established the fact that birth on the soil confers citizenship….the law of the U.S. This was a trial and Madison was testifying FOR Smith. By adding family lineage doesn’t take away from the fact that he was still NBC without that family lineage. If people are here legally and make domicile in U.S. (as proven by your NY info) their children are NBC. Case closed for you.
“The country where one is born, how accidental so ever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations there out growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 86 (1829)
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the King; and aliens are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.”
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)