Now, just before, I provided you with a summary of the common law, noting that visiting aliens were recognized as owing a temporary allegiance to the sovereign, with two exceptions: 1) ambassadors and 2) hostile invaders.
Now, let's see if you are smart enough to make the proper comparison when we consider the situation of a British army coming to the U.S. To help you out here, it's like those picture books where a child is shown, say, two group of objects, one with a mix of land animals and one with a mix of birds, then is shown a pig and asked which to which group the pig belongs. OK?
So now given the situation of a British army coming to the U.S., when assessing the status of such persons and the allegiance of others aligned with them, would you say the operative rule would associate more closely with the common law precedent of 1) ambassadors or 2) hostile invaders?
Think hard.
Yeah, *I'M* the one who isn't getting this
Congratulations. For once you've managed to make a correct assessment.
You are just one big snowplow when it comes to facts. You simply push them to one side, and none of it gets on you.
Cpn Hook plowing aside facts depicted below.
Those children of British Loyalists had nothing to do with the army. They were born of Colonists who did not wish to be Americans, but preferred instead to remain loyal to the British Crown. They weren't an "INVASION" you idiot, THEY WERE ALREADY HERE! They were that 1/3rd of the existing colonists that wanted to remain part of Britain.
They also weren't ambassadors.
This is why I am so disgusted with you idiots, you simply cannot wrap your mind around the fact that your theories are Just plain wrong, and that the history starkly goes against you. All you have is lawyer babble.