And once more, you are LYING about what Bayard understood that to be. Bayard never contemplated a law proclaiming someone to be a "citizen at birth." Under Bayard's understanding, the ONLY way to be a "citizen at birth" was to be born of an American father.
Now you come along and assert that the NATURALIZATION LAW which Congress passed in 1934 and that collectively naturalizes anyone born in a foreign country of an American mother means the EXACT SAME THING as Bayard's understanding of "Citizen at birth."
And this is why we regard you as a habitual liar. You constantly make these equivocations between one thing and another without taking into account the fact that they are very different.
You KNOW Bayard's writing was not intended for legal purposes , was a historical book for use in 'the education of youths'
You KNOW the 'authorities' you quote to imply they approved of what he said actually only approved of the project itself. {See above link}
AND you KNOW that Bayard was quoting the 1790 Naturalization Act, not giving his legal opinion of the current definition for his time, because it has been brought to your attention by more than one poster.
---------
Yet here you are, hopping from thread to thread, spreading your drek and spouting 'facts' without sources.
No wonder you've become such a laughing stock.
Now you come along and assert that the NATURALIZATION LAW which Congress passed in 1934 and that collectively naturalizes anyone born in a foreign country of an American mother means the EXACT SAME THING as Bayard's understanding of "Citizen at birth."
And this is why we regard you as a habitual liar. You constantly make these equivocations between one thing and another without taking into account the fact that they are very different.
Let me summarize your point.
A "citizen at birth" is a very, very different thing from a "citizen at birth."
And anyone who disagrees with this is a "habitual liar."
Wow. You got me, dude.