[FreeReign]

So then if a mother is a citizen then how is it that a child born to that mother (is) NOT a citizen based on "inheritence by blood"?

It IS inheritance by blood...but it takes more than a mother to make a child, so the wholesale discounting of not only the citizenship of the father, but his very existence is patently ridiculous.

Well of course it takes more than a mother to make a child. That's not the point. Using your phrasing, a child should "inherit by blood" their citizenship from their mother.

I would think that Common Law and Natural law would certainly recognize the close bond between mother and child.

Being "patently ridiculous" is to deny such a natural and commonly understood link.

[MamaTexan]

Using your phrasing, a child should "inherit by blood" their citizenship from their mother.

Exactly, yet if it were not for the father, they child would not even have blood flowing though its veins, because that child would not exist, now would it?

-----

I would think that Common Law and Natural law would certainly recognize the close bond between mother and child.

First,acceptance of one is not an exclusion of the other. I have yet to say the mothers' citizenship is immaterial.

------

Why does everyone seem to think the us government can act like the blue genie in the movie Aladdin? Like it can just point ant someone and go;

"Poof! You're a citizen".

"Poof! You're now a citizen".

"Poof! Now YOU'RE a citizen".

.....what happens if they don't want themselves OR their child TO BE a citizen?

Do you think they should be stuck with it anyway?