You anthropomorphize them as if they are living beings of one consistent mind. They are not. Those people who were in a position to know and understand best what was meant by "natural born citizen" and the 14th amendment do not agree with the jus soli theory of citizenship. Again, John Bingham, Chief architect of the 14th amendment specifically stated it was not intended to apply to the US born children of foreigners.
The Wong court deliberately ignored his clear and precise explanation that these people were not covered by the 14th amendment, and the Acolytes of legal dogma have been trumpeting this phony precedent ever since.
So fundamental, God-given natural rights can only be exerted in certain, arbitrarily-constructed places and not in others.
There is nothing arbitrary about the border. In your own land, you have a say. In our land, you do not.
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?
You appear to be intentionally ignoring the point. If you are a citizen, then you have a say, and children born to citizens are also citizens and they also have a say. There is no issue of "generations".
People who have no legal rights to citizenship are not citizens, nor are their children citizens of any but their parent's country.
Invaders and guests do not have a say in how the household is ran. Family does. If you want a say, join the family. Don't sneak into our house and pretend you are a member.
You (or John Bingham) having an opinion doesn't change the fact that under the actual words of the law as written and interpreted by the bodies constitutionally empowered to do so, jus soli is the law of the land.
There is nothing arbitrary about the border. In your own land, you have a say. In our land, you do not.
Of course they're arbitrary. They're laid out by negotiation, or by a draftsman. There's nothing natural about the shape of Colorado. It was drawn by men with rulers. To go back to the example of hispanics in the southwest, why do they not have a greater right, since those lands were taken from them them by force, and an arbitrary line drawn to slice off half their land? Do they not have a greater multigenerational claim than some johnny-come-latelies who have only been there 150 years?
If you are a citizen, then you have a say, and children born to citizens are also citizens and they also have a say.
Citizenship is legal construct. Either a person has a natural right to self-determination or they do not. You really believe that your God-given rights depend on which side of a line someone drew with a ruler you're standing on?
Invaders and guests do not have a say in how the household is ran.
Tell that to the Indians.