What befuddles me is how stealthily you made believe that you did not see the part about the usage of the term natural born citizen in 1784, three years before the Constitutional Convention. I take that back.You are going to have to get more specific before I can understand what you mean well enough to respond to it.
If you don't understand the significance of the term usage three years before its usage in the Constitution, I doubt I have the skill to explain it to you in a manner you would understand. I will leave you to your Law of the Imagination™. That reveals all like a magic eight-ball.
Perhaps the term, shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be may be boiler plate language of naturalization documents, used for years and years.
Exactly what I have been saying. All these examples are adoptions.
So, perhaps a majority of persons born in Massachusetts are not citizens, and their children are not citizens, and they are just a bunch of non-citizen non-aliens. The horror!
1790 Naturalization Act made no citizens. Massachusetts naturalization did not make citizens. Direct naturalization by the legislature did not make an individual a citizen. And if they were pretend citizens, and you do not recognize jus soli, their children were pretend citizens, down through the generations until the present time. Talk about voter fraud.
[DiogenesLamp #330] "natural born citizen" is an act of God
I seem to recall making a natural born citizen and hearing oh god, oh god.
Now if two naturalized fake citizens engaged in an act of god, would the product of that divine act inherit fake citizenship?
Would the child of two pretend citizens acquire birthright citizenship via jus soli?
What is the purpose of naturalization if it does not make any citizens? Is it just so the subject can pretend to be a citizen?
For a presidential candidate, does it matter if his parents are real or pretend citizens?
This Law of the Imagination™ is entertaining, if nothing else.
You will have to ask your strawman how he arrived at that conclusion, because you certainly can't get there from anything I said.
1790 Naturalization Act made no citizens. Massachusetts naturalization did not make citizens.
You are going in a very strange direction here. I disagree. Naturalization makes "naturalized" citizens. It doesn't make "natural" citizens.
Is the difference between "natural born" and "naturalized" so difficult for you to grasp?
Direct naturalization by the legislature did not make an individual a citizen.
See? You are somehow hearing things i'm not saying. "Naturalization" makes "naturalized" citizens. It doesn't make "natural born" citizens, hence the need for the monkey language of "adjudged", "taken to be", regarded as"...
This Law of the Imagination™ is entertaining, if nothing else.
You certainly seemed to have been entertained by your own imagination, but you didn't have any help from me but what you dreamed up yourself.