If the law isn't working, what we need is ANOTHER LAW! I would ask if you are serious, but I know better. Deluded people ARE serious even when they talk crazy.
How about "they weren't citizens until they were MADE citizens?" Is that too complicated for you? They created a law to MAKE them citizens because existing law did not do so.
Again, something we've been over many, many times. Because Indians in tribes were not in American society. They were members of separate nations with their own governments, and our laws did not apply to them except to the extent that they interacted with our society.
And this explanation cracks me up every time you propose it! The INDIANS were separate NATIONS you say, but you have asserted all along that the father's NATIONALITY has no BEARING on citizenship?
How do you speak with such a forked tongue? (Or forked understanding. Either way, you're "forked!")
(Jeff's forked tongue depicted below.)
Yup, according to you "nationality doesn't matter" except with Indians, of course. Then it matters.
Since it took much more time, expense and danger to travel internationally than it does now, anchor babies were not contemplated in the historical context that gave rise to the phrase "natural born citizen."
Yes, the Children of British Loyalists born here were obviously beyond the comprehension of our founders. How could they have contemplated such a rare event which only occurred @ 100,000 times during the founding era? And of course, they simply couldn't understand the subtle nuance of the WAR OF 1812. Poor stupid founders.
I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for excluding them from citizenship.
More Jeff Fork Tongue here.
You can't have it both ways Jeff. If you claim soil as the basis of your citizenship, you have to eat the anchor baby soup you ordered.
Obviously Bingham wasn't as smart as you. Poor dumb Bingham who wasn't smart enough to think of "anchor babies" when he wrote:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.
The vast majority of our early legal authorities all go one way when it comes to the meaning of natural born citizenship.
Yes, they go AGAINST YOU! You have to go to secondary and worse "authorities" to come up with your stuff. People like Rawle, that French Valet, the Spanish Janitor, and those English Lawyers.
What have you got from Delegates or members of ratifying legislatures? Nothing! You got exactly NOTHING! That's why you don't want to talk about them.
Why do you adamantly ignore or brush off all of our best early legal experts, to instead push the claims of folks like David Ramsay (who was directly contradicted 36 to 1 by James Madison, other Framers, and our first House) and Samuel Roberts (who cited no authority and had very little of his own)?
And here is where Jeff the LIAR comes out.
You mischaracterize the Vote to seat Williams as something it is not, and you deliberately lie about the fact that the Book Roberts compiled is the work of the entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, not just Roberts. You ignore the fact that it was used for at least FOUR DECADES by all state legal authorities in Pennsylvania, and that it is based on principles espoused in Pennsylvania's first constitution by Franklin, Wilson, and other Delegates.
Look through the book. You will see where the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania cites English laws by Monarch and number. The cited laws are those which remained in Effect in Pennsylvania.
Guess which English law cite they left out of their report? Yup. That one you are always going on about. The one that grants automatic citizenship to anyone born on English Soil.
Stupid Judges. They just don't go along with your narrative, do they?