Replies

The author "Publius" also says "In my judgement, our minister erred in his decision - & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States." He goes on to suggest that the law should be amended, but is clear that "We are not considering what the law ought to be, but what it is."

The error (as explained in the text) is on the basis of the naturalization of the father, not place of birth. It's very clear that place of birth is not sufficient to create citizenship for the children of foreigners. This rejects English common law ... and it does so by stressing a right of expatriation which is NOT part of common law.

It's very clear that place of birth is not sufficient to create citizenship for the children of foreigners.

No, it's not "very clear," especially since SCOTUS has held otherwise. You may want to believe that, but SCOTUS does not agree, and like it or not, they interpret the law and the Constitution and we're bound by what they decide unless we change the law, the Constitution, or the Court. And since the Court, with four Conservative justices, has consistently declined to hear Donofrio's (and others') cases, I doubt changing the Court would help in this matter. This has been held to be settled law.

What part of "Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States" are you claiming Publius didn't say?