So, are we to understand you do indeed intend to maintain the falsehood and lie that Thomas Jefferson was an actual citizen of France with all of the rights and obligations which entail from such citizenship similarly incumbent upon another person who was born in Metropolitan France with French parents and had never left France?
I never said that Jefferson had the exact same French citizenship status as a person who was born a French citizen. As far as him being an "actual citizen of France," Nathan Dane said he was. Nathan Dane said that Jefferson had been "naturalized in France and there made a French citizen." He further emphasized the bona-fine nature of Jefferson's French citizenship by saying that "had he gone there [he] would have been entitled to all the rights there of an adopted citizen."
Now you can of course say (like the idiot DiogenesLamp says) that Nathan Dane, the distinguished Father of American Jurisprudence, was wrong. It takes a hell of a lot of ignorance and arrogance to do it, but you can do so if you like.
Oh, yeah. Well, Nathan Dane is wrong. William Rawle is wrong. James Bayard is wrong. All those who agreed with James Bayard (including the Great Chief Justice John Marshall) are wrong.
Well, the list of the most brilliant legal experts of the early United States, and the list of historical legal experts, and conservative legal foundations, and present-day judges, and Supreme Court Justices, who are outshined by the stunning brilliance of a bunch of birthers on the internet (who never attended their first law class) just gets longer and longer and longer, doesn't it?
At what point does it start to occur to you imbeciles... Hey, maybe it's not all the great legal luminaries of American history who are wrong? Maybe it's my own damn stupid theory.
Hmmm? Might that idea ever occur to you guys? Just a thought.