[CpnHook]

So do you agree that jus soli was not the original intent, or do you claim that it was?

I think the Framers' point of view was essentially the English view they had known, one that I submit was expressed by James Madison in the passage most everyone should about have memorized:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion[.]"

So place governs in 99.99 percent of cases simply because a relative few are born abroad. But this is open to recognition of jus sanguinis as to foreign births. England recognized that by statute. I don't think Madison (or anyone else) had Vattel in view.

[Fantasywriter]

So now apply that to Cruz’ case.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the Framers' point of view was essentially the English view they had known, one that I submit was expressed by James Madison in the passage most everyone should about have memorized:

Ah, but PRESIDENT Madison did not adhere to this view.

He allowed James McClure to rot in a French Prison for almost two years rather than order his Ambassador (John Armstrong who *WAS* a member of the 1787 continental congress, and for whom we apparently have an actual photograph)

to secure his release. It was explicitly pointed out to Madison that James McClure was *BORN* in Charleston South Carolina, and Madison was painfully aware of who James McClure was. It took the intervention of a Supreme Court Justice (Justice William Johnson)

and a Congressman from South Carolina (Langdon Cheves)

to eventually convince the Madison administration to regard him as an American citizen, and send the appropriate instructions to secure his release.

If Madison really believed that mere birth on the soil was the only requirement, why didn't he countermand Armstrong and order his release right away?

What is always left out of the understanding of the issue by you Obots, is that James Madison argued that William Smith was a citizen under Common law, *AND* that he was a citizen through inheritance. You also leave out the fact that Madison and William Smith were political allies. You also leave out the fact that William Smith himself argued before Congress that according to Vattel, he was a citizen.

You only put forth that one statement in the manner of the Liberal Media with a soundbite, and you make no effort to insure people have a comprehensive understanding of the motives or subsequent history of the event or of James Madison's opinions on the subject.

In other words, you don't care what the truth is, you only want people to believe it is what you want it to be.

Well it isn't.