You and I have argued about this in the past. Your assertion is but one more bit of fruit from the poisoned tree of asserting a jus soli claim to citizenship. I do not believe jus soli was ever legally valid in this nation, despite the misinformed people throughout history who have claimed otherwise.
The consequences of recognizing a jus soli claim to citizenship is just such a fiasco as is occurring in California, though I think their population of actual illegals is a significant portion of the vote there.
Jus soli is a rational position if you are a Monarch asserting any and every claim of subjectude over anyone you can, but it is a nonsensical and foolish position for any sort of Republic which bestows benefits on it's citizens. The US is one of the few places left in the world that follows this nonsense, and even Britain, upon which it is asserted our laws are based, has abandoned this horribly foolish idea.
Why not? Who says whose land is whose? Do not all people have a right to self-determination wherever they may be? Is that not a natural right? Must be consistent now.
Sure, they have a right to self determination, but not with property that does not belong to them. Back in their home country where they are citizens, they have the right to create whatever sort of government they prefer. That *is* consistent.
In your house, you have the final say about what transpires. The fact that guests may be present does not give them the right to override your will.
Your assertion is that guests (or even intruders) can assert dominance in your own house. It is nonsense and you know it.
Like the courts and congress.
Sure, they have a right to self determination, but not with property that does not belong to them. Back in their home country where they are citizens, they have the right to create whatever sort of government they prefer. That *is* consistent.
So fundamental, God-given natural rights can only be exerted in certain, arbitrarily-constructed places and not in others. How many generations of ancestors does one need to have someplace before they can exert their natural rights of self-determination without having to return to some ancestral homeland to do so?
But your opinion on this is irrelevant to the hypothetical proposed by Sherman Logan, a hypothetical which will soon not be so hypothetical...
If majority citizens of a certain race (or religion, or ideology) suddenly declare their independence in California, or elsewhere, what constitutional obligation does the Federal Government have to recognize such?
Answer: none, unless approved by Congress.