I have been noticing it, but that can be taken two ways. One, that they don't know what to do anymore, or two, that they no longer think it is an issue worth discussing because they feel that it is over and they have won.
My position is that we should continue doing research for evidence that demonstrates the correct understanding of "natural born citizen" and distribute it out to the people. I've actually thought it would be nice if someone could do a professional style documentary on the topic. If done well enough, it might go viral.
Of course it is difficult to get people to pay attention to writing on old documents because that's just how supercilious we are nowadays.
Hello everybody,
I have a question about this article.
The conclusion seems to be that the Madison Administration required citizen parents for a child born in the US to be a citizen. I assume this is based on the actions of General John Armstrong Jr. and his refusal to recognize McClure’s citizenship. But the article says that Mr. McClure travel to France on a US passport issued by the American Minister in London (presumably William Pinkney). A passport “confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S.”
So, did the US Minister in Great Britian recognize jus soli as the source of citizenship? But US Minister to France required jus sanjuinis and just soli?