Say what? Let's see, you just got through telling me I'm full of guano for suggesting "class" does not mean "citizen". No you're saying there aren't two classes of citizen? Did you get Donofrio's approval before admitting that?
And since you're determined to ignore the facts, I'll spell it out for you, so everyone in this forum can see what a clumsy lout you are at logical thinking:
The word "class" appears exactly twice in MvH. Here's the first:
Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people
The second is the one you love to quote:
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts
In the second instance Waite is clearly simply restating (and slightly expanding on) what he said in the first, albeit with slightly different wording. So if we want to know whether "class" in the second instance refers to "citizen" or "children" we need only glance up two paragraphs, where Waite explicitly says "classes of persons".
English can be such a bitch.
Now, I've shown you exactly why "class" cannot be referring to "citizen". In response all you do is tell me I'm full of nonsense without even the slightest attempt to defend your view. If you want to, you know, actually provide some evidence or something, I'd be happy to discuss that, otherwise I'll just chalk up another Obot win.
“Class,” as far as I see, simply means a particular identifiable group of people. There’s no social meaning attached to the word.
Good to see that you can recognize yourself.
No you're saying there aren't two classes of citizen? Did you get Donofrio's approval before admitting that?
Oh yeah FoGBlower, I've got him on the line now.
And since you're determined to ignore the facts, I'll spell it out for you, so everyone in this forum can see what a clumsy lout you are at logical thinking:
LoL. You certianly are... that you are full of lizard guano.
In the second instance Waite is clearly simply restating (and slightly expanding on) what he said in the first, albeit with slightly different wording. So if we want to know whether "class" in the second instance refers to "citizen" or "children" we need only glance up two paragraphs, where Waite explicitly says "classes of persons".
No village Foggy, Waite clearly differentiates between children "born within the jurisdiction" (the jus soli and who are not NBCs) who some thought to be "citizens" at birth, but that was doubtful they were actually citizens because they were not formally naturalized to be US citizens. If the child's parents were foreigners, the child was still a foreign citizen, just like his parents, regardless if the child was born in the United States. Children and their mothers would inherit the father's US citizenship after he took the oath of citizenship regardless where the child was born. ...As it did not matter where the child was born in the US of A, the child was still considered a foreigner until his father naturalized as a US citizen. This would all change about 25 years later when justice Gray wrongfully (another story) decreed Wong Kim Ark a citizen in 1898.
English can be such a bitch.
Yeah, certainly for deranged FogBlowers. Hey Fogblower, you should post your illusions on Donofrio's website This article and thread is about his works. Here you go Foggy troll.
Now, I've shown you exactly why "class" cannot be referring to "citizen". In response all you do is tell me I'm full of nonsense without even the slightest attempt to defend your view.
Wow, you are a Foggy clown. Class or citizen or whatever you want to name it. Is that people can and do become citizens of these United States in different ways and circumstances, but it does not make them all natural born citizens.
If you want to, you know, actually provide some evidence or something, I'd be happy to discuss that, otherwise I'll just chalk up another Obot win.
Oh please Obot you're killing me.