This is not a citation.
You are deceptively conflating "birthright citizenship" with Jus Soli, when the majority of the word uses Jus Sanguinus. Even England uses Jus Sanguinus now.
There is no deception. Jus soli is commonly referred to as "birthright citizenship" in current parlance, since it is citizenship obtained solely by birth within a country's jurisdiction with no other qualifications. Citizenship obtained because one's birth parents are citizens is more properly called "inherited citizenship".
Jus Soli is monarchist. You can research it yourself, but my days of digging through old books to learn this stuff are mostly over.
You asserted "jus soli" as being inherently linked with the common law; it is not, as seen with civil-law countries where jus soli is nonetheless practiced. You have also asserted "jus soli" is inherently monarchist, even though it is practiced by countries that are not monarchies. You have also characterized "jus soli" as uniquely English, even though there are far more countries in the Americas who practice it despite having no English inheritance.
You are trying to assert historical accidents as being fundamental to the essence of a thing. The bottom line is this: to be considered a citizen by virtue of being born with the jurisdiction of a country does not require said country to be a monarchy; it is a concept which holds with or without monarchy. Period.
I think it proves the point that a lot of people saw Britain's manner of grabbing everyone they could snag as immoral.
The written opinion of one Presbyterian minister = "a lot of people"? (This is also notwithstanding the conflation of criticisms of British impressment — which McLeod was describing based on context — with criticisms of jus soli; these are not one and the same.)
One of your biggest deceptions is the claim that man made law can override what is a function of the law of nature.
Citizenship, I would argue, is not an inherent law of nature, because it is something which exists *outside of nature*; no one is *inherently* a citizen of anything just by virtue of their own existence, since human life is prior in principle before their relations to a nation.
This can be seen just by referring to Alexander McLeod's work cited before, on page 170 (italics in the original): "I readily admit, that there is something in the idea of native country, which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however, the spot of earth, upon which the child is born, that connects him with the national society; but the relation of the child's parents to that society. In the ordinary concerns of life there is no need of such minute distinctions; and there is too little discrimination, exercised by the greater part of men, to be able to understand it. Even statesmen are not always wise; and designing men find it their interest to keep up a confusion of ideas upon important subjects. In the present discussion, nevertheless, it is necessary, that I distinctly state to you the true bond which connects the child with the body politic. It is not the inanimate matter of a piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. Let a child be born within the walls of a church, this does not make him a church member; but if the parent or parents be in connexion with the church, so is the offspring. Visible society, as it is provided for in the constitution of human nature, naturally seeks to perpetuate its own existence, by conferring upon children the membership of their parents. Each citizen too is supposed to reserve for his offspring the benefits of society. The Governor of the universe approves of this provision. Thus it is, that the country of the father is that of the child, and not because he happened to be born in its territory."
Now, does it not strike you (contra McLeod's conclusion, but only accepting his premises) that one's relation to society being conditioned according to the relation of one's father cannot be something you possess by nature? What if one's father has disdain for the country he lives in, yet is unwilling to leave; or perhaps one's father has revolutionary ideas regarding the nation he is a citizen of, to the point it would upend the societal order as it stands? Is your citizenship therefore marred or rendered lesser because of the substandard moral relation held by the father?
And so on; suffice to say, of the things which human beings possess by natural right, I would argue in the order of logic that "citizenship" cannot be one of them in either case: in the case of "jus soli", the place of one's birth is an accidental fact of history; in the case of "jus sanguinus", a child cannot claim by right the moral relations of their own parents, as those are something which a child cannot possess of their own volition or will simply because they exist (especially considering a child is incapable of ANY moral relations, properly speaking, before they reach the age of reason).
With that being said, "jus soli" is all-inclusive, and some nations have deemed that to be a fitting course of action (particularly in the case of those who would otherwise be stateless for one reason or another). Others have not, as is within their right to pursue "jus sanguinus" as their default mode of citizenship. Either method can be utilized as a means by which society can perpetuate its own existence.
You are claiming adoption equals birth.
I have claimed no such thing. Put away the straw man.
You are offering us "trans-citizens", rather than natural citizens.
Whether they be citizen by soil or citizen by blood, they still possess all of the rights and privileges of American citizenship at the moment of birth. Nothing "trans" about that.
As men attempt to pretend they are women, so too would you have us believe that by *CALLING* people "natural citizens", they become natural citizens.
This is a categorical error, since men and women differ in kind by reason of biological fact (by nature itself, you could say).
A society, however it governs itself and its inhabitants, are in principle capable of choosing the means by which said inhabitants can be considered citizens, and what conditions may be required for one to be deemed a citizen automatically by reason of birth. This is because citizenship is not a permanent aspect of human nature in the way that sex is.
If you cease to be a citizen of any given country — or even if you refuse to become a citizen at ALL — you do not therefore cease to be human.
No. You don't get to define the premise of the debate. Birthright citizenship means citizenship obtained through the circumstances of birth, and you want to claim it means "soil", while I claim it means "blood."
As Alexander McLeod noted, being born in the church doesn't make you a member.
You have also characterized "jus soli" as uniquely English, even though there are far more countries in the Americas who practice it despite having no English inheritance.
I do not know what are the roots of it in South America, but Mexico is likely influenced by what was believed here, and at the moment we don't know how far back their adherence to Jus Soli extends. It may be a relatively recent phenomena, because it was uncommon in the European countries (except for England) that colonized central and south America.
The bottom line is this: to be considered a citizen by virtue of being born with the jurisdiction of a country does not require said country to be a monarchy; it is a concept which holds with or without monarchy.
Now. But you are trying to ignore it's origins. It's roots are monarchy.
The written opinion of one Presbyterian minister = "a lot of people"?
You forgot about David J. Seipp's comment too? Add to that the instructions from the Pennsylvania legislature regarding the British laws in effect, and you've got three. A quick check of other sources would show you these attitudes were not the exception but were instead the rule.
Citizenship, I would argue, is not an inherent law of nature, because it is something which exists *outside of nature*;
You need to do some more reading on "natural law." You clearly aren't grasping the belief system upon which this nation was founded.
I would have thought some poking about in Rex Lex would have helped you see the world through their eyes.
You asserted "jus soli" as being inherently linked with the common law; it is not...
You were going to cite me a statute or something? You've said a lot since then, but none of it is pointing out a statute.
...even though it is practiced by countries that are not monarchies.
Let's try to keep some accuracy, "even though it is practiced by countries that are *NO LONGER* monarchies."
no one is *inherently* a citizen of anything just by virtue of their own existence, since human life is prior in principle before their relations to a nation.
What is a tribe?
Whether they be citizen by soil or citizen by blood, they still possess all of the rights and privileges of American citizenship at the moment of birth.
And you said that you aren't claiming adoption equals birth. You are very much claiming that it does.
But you are wrong here. I have pointed out Rogers v Bellei before, and that alone should demonstrate to you that not all citizens at birth are created equal.
Natural citizens cannot lose citizenship because they failed some residency requirement, or some other requirement specified congress in creating their naturalization act.
This is a categorical error, since men and women differ in kind by reason of biological fact (by nature itself, you could say).
But "the LAW" says they don't. This is just more proof of my point that "the LAW" and reality are often at odds. Reality is the hard rock against which the law breaks.
A society, however it governs itself and its inhabitants, are in principle capable of choosing the means by which said inhabitants can be considered citizens, and what conditions may be required for one to be deemed a citizen automatically by reason of birth.
They can adopt. They cannot through law, make something true which is not true.
This is because citizenship is not a permanent aspect of human nature in the way that sex is.
I disagree. You are born into your tribe, and you have inherently natural responsibilities to it, and it to you.
Adopting members from outside your tribe is possible, but requires an act of naturalization.
People don't become part of your tribe by being born among you.
If you cease to be a citizen of any given country — or even if you refuse to become a citizen at ALL ...
Someone else will decide what you are.
William Lewis was never on a Federal appellate court and thus never had any authority set any federal precedent.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges reviewed British statutes, not British common law. They neither reviewed, or did they throw out any common law.
[DiogenesLamp #346] Jus Soli is monarchical in nature. It is inherently monarchical. Let me give you an idea of what one contemporary thought of it. . . . Alexander Mcleod, d.d. (1815)
Contemporary?
The common law origin of jus soli begins with the case of Elyas de Rababyn (1290) II Rotuli Parliamentorum 139 where it was assumed that all persons born on English soil were subjects of the King.
It is far better known in common law in Calvin v. Smith, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (K.B. 1608).
Jus soli existed in the colonies, and later in the states. It is the law of the United States today, without exception or limitation.
Jus soli was largely abandoned in Britain with the British Nationality Law of 1981. There is limited jus soli in the United Kingdom for foreign nationals resident in the UK for three years or more before the birth of the child.