You need to do some more reading on "natural law." You clearly aren't grasping the belief system upon which this nation was founded.
The U.S. legal system is derived from the English common law legal system. When you find a natural law court, tell us all about it.
As a matter of law, natural law isn't. God's law does not enter the legal system either. For citizenship, international law (the law of nations) does not enter into it.
Since the United States was founded, the law of citizenship has been jus soli for domestic births and jus sanguinis for births abroad.
The Founders and Framers didn't know any better. The had lived with English common law all their time in the realms of the king.
The belief system upon which the nation was built was not enacted into law. The words of the law were enacted into law. Unlike the law made up of words, the Law of the Imagination™ is composed of vague ideas which come and go and morph.
The Constitution, ratified by the people, empowered the Congress to make an uniform rule of naturalization. The Imaginator™ has deemed and adjudged that subjects of naturalization are taken to be pretend citizens. But the question for the courts is what was the interpretation of the words by the people when the people ratified the provision as written. Is naturalization properly construed as the making of pretend citizens?
The boring, routine, drudgery of ordinary legal doings was derived from English common law, but the core essential of American law is based upon a very different foundation than that the King Rules by Divine Right.
The exceptional aspects of American law comes from "natural law" and the rights of man based on it.
Since the United States was founded, the law of citizenship has been jus soli for domestic births and jus sanguinis for births abroad.
So you would have us believe, but the evidence I have shown you in these threads demonstrate that your position is but one opinion from two possible options, and the evidence for your position appears to be weaker.
The Founders and Framers didn't know any better. The had lived with English common law all their time in the realms of the king.
Common Law doesn't deal with "citizens", it deals with subjects. When they left the British monarchy's laws, they left behind that aspect of British common law.
Where did they get this word "citizen"? They got it from Vattel. There is no other more obvious source for it than him.
The belief system upon which the nation was built was not enacted into law.
You are like the fish that doesn't believe in water because he is so surrounded in it he can't see it.
Unlike the law made up of words, the Law of the Imagination™ is composed of vague ideas which come and go and morph.
In whatever manner the Judges dictate. Yes, it's been a long term problem for this nation.
The Constitution, ratified by the people, empowered the Congress to make an uniform rule of naturalization.
There's that "naturalization" word again.
The Imaginator™ has deemed and adjudged that subjects of naturalization are taken to be pretend citizens.
Naturalized citizens are naturalized citizens. This makes them not "natural born" citizens.
Is naturalization properly construed as the making of pretend citizens?
Adopted citizens. Not "natural born" citizens.