Replies

1789, David Ramsay, founding father, framer & signer of the constitution:

There are 5 ways to gain citizenship:
1. party to the original compact; declaration of independence
2. taking an oath of fidelity
3. tacit consent
4 birth
5. adoption

The 1, 2 & 5 being self explanatory, we'll move directly to 3 & 4.

tacit consent: minors through the consent of the parents who themselves became citizens or those minors at the time of the revolution whose parents did not become citizens who remained in the country after their coming of age, but this was strictly limited to those who lived and remained in the country throughout the revolution having a permanent residence in one of the states.

birth: None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence; for this obvious reason : for no man can be born a citizen of a state or government , which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the “INHERITANCE” of the children of those who have taken part in the revolution; but this is confined “EXCLUSIVELY” to the children of those who were themselves citizens.

Ramsay goes on to further explain:

Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character tot heir children, but that of “Subjects”, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one could be certain whether they would have adhered to the “king” or "Congress". Their children, therefore, may claim by “INHERITANCE” the rights of “British Subjects”, but not of “American Citizens”.

Now since this was being taught in American schools directly after the constitution went into effect and the only birthright citizenship it refers to is that by 'inhertance throught the parents', I challenge you to find & bring to the forum here, the dissertation of a different founding father, framer & signer of the constitution that refutes this.