I did not write what you claim. I wrote this ...
In 1958, Congress passed a law that said persons born in Alaska since 1867 were US citizens at birth.
I have repeatedly and expressly rejected the equivalence of "citizen at birth = NBC." Please stop insinuating false claims about my words and my position.
The Alaska example (and Hawaii is similar) was raised in the context of an assertion that NBC could not be conferred retroactively. I pointed to the statute pertinent to Alaska, and asked if my correspondent saw it as an impermissible retroactive grant. My correspondent, like you, draws an equivalence between "citizen-at-birth" and NBC.
[[I have repeatedly and expressly rejected the equivalence of “citizen at birth = NBC.” Please stop insinuating false claims about my words and my position.]]
Sorry- again that was not intentional- I assumed you were making the case that citizen at birth was NBC since that is the common interpretation of citizen ‘at’ birth- I will note that you do not support that interpretation from here on out- I’ve never actually seen you state you reject that equivalence- (not saying you didn’t state that, just that I didn’t see it if you did)
[[I pointed to the statute pertinent to Alaska, and asked if my correspondent saw it as an impermissible retroactive grant.]]
I see that now- I thought you were making the case that is was for the purpose of showing that IF it is allowed ‘by statute’ then it shouldn’t be constitutionally acquired- I misread your intention for asking the question - and as noted, I’ll read your future comments on this issue according to your explanation you gave above- sorry-