It is bait to draw me into a discussion of how changing the citizenship of the mother affects the citizenship of the child. That is not the point, that is an irrelevant side issue. I have told you that it is an irrelevant side issue, and you have persisted in making that the focus of your argument. The point is that split citizenship was unknown during the founding era AND the subsequent 14th amendment era.
And thanks for the implicit admission of your error. Calling names and running away from the point is great confirmation of your error. Second greatest such admission on the Internet, second only to Godwin's law.
The Dog chases a car and thinks it is running; frightened away by the barking no doubt. :)
Were slaves considered persons? Nope - they were exempt considered property, not people. Chattel, just commodities to be bought, sold and traded as needed. Nice try, though.
Are you so dense as to not comprehend the significance of this point? They WERE considered people. No one ever thought a slave was not a person. They just didn't have legal rights because they were slaves. Some slaves were manumitted and became citizens. THEY passed on their citizenship to their offspring, but their enslaved brethren could not do this. Why? It was because they did not have the characteristic that made it possible. CITIZENSHIP. Those children of former slaves were themselves legally CITIZENS.
And of course we've since had the 14th Amendment (those pesky Amendments again) - and since that IS part of the Constitution, and has been for about 150 years (well before the great, great grandparents of Rubio or Obama were even born), they are natural born citizens by virtue of birth on US soil.
The 14th amendment was created to make Citizens of Freed Slaves. It "naturalized" the slaves en masse. It was not created to repeal article II or make children born of foreigners eligible.
You just don't want to answer the question directly - because doing so will show you to be a liar or a fool - and either one sucks to be you!
Pot, meet kettle. You have yet to address the subject of the non-existance of dual citizens prior to the 20th century, regardless of how many times I have attempted to steer you back to it.
If the mother's citizenship changes, that does not - in any way - change the citizenship of a child. Pure and simple. NO ONE can take your citizenship from you, except by an act of the Courts on conviction of treason. You don't like that, though...
ou have yet to address the subject of the non-existance of dual citizens prior to the 20th century, regardless of how many times I have attempted to steer you back to it.
You've NEVER MENTIONED THAT at all to me... You simply are irrational - you jump around when faced with an obstacle, you tattle on others, you have no ability to admit your errors.
With representatives like you, it's no wonder so few give birthers any credence of legitimacy...