No, it’s not hypocrisy. It is a clear and accurate explanation of the rules by which a person’s citizenship is determined.
The basic rule (and this rule has applied THROUGHOUT US history and even before, when we were English colonies, and even before that, in England, originated with the idea that God divided the world up into nations, and established authorities over those nations.
Those nations have geographical boundaries within them, and according to the ancient English idea of natural law, those geographical boundaries are part of the governmental realm.
And when a person is born within the geographical boundaries of that realm, he is born in relationship to and with a responsibility to adhere to, that particular realm and the governing authority over it.
That was the theory. That was the theory of natural law that established the original concept, and the original precedent. And it is derived from the writings of St. Paul.
But the English decided that that situation was not absolute. What if the child was born to, and raised by, a visiting queen from another country? Such a person was subject to the other realm, not this one. What if the child was born to the official ambassador of that queen? Such a child would always return to the other realm, and even here, by the rules of international relations, would always be subject to that realm and not this one. What if the child was born to an invading army? Similar situation.
Over time, the original reasoning of the rule was largely forgotten, but the descriptive name was retained: “Natural born subject.” When we changed “subject” to “citizen,” then “natural born subject” became “natural born citizen.” And both terms have the same basic rule and mean the same thing, except for the fact that a “natural born CITIZEN” is not subservient to a king or queen.
So I am not “advocating” anything. I am EXPLAINING to you the English-American rule of citizenship by birth within a realm AS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.
Again, this is not even QUESTIONED by any real legal authority. It’s not even controversial, except on the internet.
Based on the comments and in regards to Iran the top adviser to the President of the United States, Valerie Jarrett, has a ‘responsibility to adhere to, that realm and the governing authority over it.’?
Is that correct?