You are substituting your point for my own. Again I will say that my point is not that Scots would want to live in England, it's that they would greatly resent being told they have no right to own land in England because they aren't Subjects of England even though they are subjects of her King.
It smells like second class citizenship er ... I mean subjectship.
You said that. I didn't even hint at that. If you know what the law of Scotland said at the time, do tell.
Why would the law of Scotland have any effect on the ownership of English lands?
England and Scotland were separate countries until Great Britain was formed in 1707. Calvin's Case was in 1608.
Without Calvin's case coming out as it did, I very greatly doubt there would have been a Great Britain in 1707.
You are free to say that, but whether right or wrong, it is irrelevant to whether one is, or is not, born a citizen in the United States.
It is relevant to how such things came to be the way they are. Clearly, had Calvin's case gone the other way, Jus Soli would not be the established idea that it is now.
"From the meeting of the crowns of England and Scotland in the person of the first James, grew one of the most important questions of state, which ever engaged the attention of either country."
Exactly my point. This case was a threat to the Union, and that is exactly why it had to be decided the way it was.
Again I will say that my point is not that Scots would want to live in England, it's that they would greatly resent being told they have no right to own land in England because they aren't Subjects of England even though they are subjects of her King.
This had no applicability to the common Scot at the time. It only pertained the landed gentry who had been bestowed ownership of English land by the King of England. Scots were subjects of the King of Scotland, not the King of England. One person can be king of multiple kingdoms, each with its own laws, and he rules each separately by the laws of each. English and Scottish owed allegiance to the same person, but not the same king, as royal things go. James was James I or James VI, depending on who was counting.
It had nothing whatever to do with Scottish law.
Why would the law of Scotland have any effect on the ownership of English lands?
It wouldn't, just as the law of England would not have any effect on the English ownership of Scottish lands. The effect of two kings and one person with a crown affects things royal such as bequeathing royal patents for his land.
Technically, the owner of all the public land in Canada is the Queen of Canada.
It has not a single damn thing to do with the right of the United States to define its citizenship in any way it finds to its liking.
It is relevant to how such things came to be the way they are. Clearly, had Calvin's case gone the other way, Jus Soli would not be the established idea that it is now.
I have already dated the law of jus soli and jus sanguinis back to the 13th century.
"Dating as far back as the thirteenth century, the ‘subject’, as position and identity, was legally defined through a complicated mixture of both ‘soil and blood’." See my #37.
The previously cited De Natis Ultra Mare (Status of Children Born Abroad Act of 1350) 25 Edw III. Stat. 2. was from the 25th year of the reign of King Edward III. Apparently, it remains if effect in England. That is jus sanguinis in England in 1350.
I say again, and again, United States citizenship, as with the citizenship of every nation on earth, is a domestic determination relying solely on its own domestic laws. People running around before there was a United States did not decide what law would be used in the United States.
You are not expressing the law. You are expressing a personal disagreement with the actual law, or the results of the actual law.
You may make believe your personal opinion overrides Supreme Court opinions, but it doesn't. The law is neither good nor bad. It is not a statement of waht is moral nor immoral. It is whatever it says it is, as interpreted by the courts. The law can be as dumb as a post and it is still the law. The Fugitive Slave Clause was once the law of the land. It was never a statement of morality, but it was undeniably constitutional law.
At the time the 14th Amendment was being adopted, Chinese persons were ineligible for naturalization. They had no pathway to citizenship. The exclusion act was not repealed until 1943. And yet, it is an incontrovertible fact that Chinese children, born in the United States of foreign parents ineligible to be naturalized, were natural born United States citizens. In debate, this was certified as the deliberate intent of the proposed Amendment, and later the U.S. Supreme Court held this was the effect of the adopted Amendment.
You must appeal to old foreign laws, or claims of laws, because you know absolutely that United States law is contrary to your desired result. Birther arguments, presented to courts, ended with predictable results.
In Kerchner et al v. Obama et al, D.N.J. 1:09-CV-00253, the case was dismissed by the District Court and Complainant appealed to the 3rd Circuit court. The 3rd Circuit court affirmed the lower court and in judgment assessed costs against Appellant. The U.S. Supreme court denied cert.
On page 7 of 3rd Circuit precedential opinion, [emphasis added]
Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed.
And, in the Judgment, the Court assessed costs against Appellants.
JUDGMENTThis cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 29, 2010.
On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered October 21, 2009, be and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against Appellants. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court.