In fact, watch very carefully the consequences of bringing up the James McClure case.
JAMES MCCLURE WAS BORN IN SOUTH CAROLINA ON THE 21ST OF APRIL, 1785, TO A BRITISH FATHER.
At that time, the United States had separated from England and declared a new country.
THEREFORE, IF THE BIRTHER CLAIM IS CORRECT, HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BORN A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.
If (and I say IF) the birther claim is correct, then MCCLURE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BECOME A NATURALIZED US CITIZEN IN FEBRUARY 1786, WHEN HIS FATHER NATURALIZED.
Right?
And if he was NOT born a US citizen, THEN ANY USE OF HIS BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES to establish his citizenship IS COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND ABSURD.
And yet... what does James Monroe say in his letter? What REASON does Monroe give that McClure is a United States citizen?
IT IS THAT HE WAS BORN IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
This is IMPOSSIBLE as evidence... IF the birther claim is correct.
The only possible logical conclusion, then, is:
THE BIRTHER CLAIM IS NOT CORRECT.
And that conclusion has on it the stamp of approval of not one but TWO of our most important Founding Fathers and early Presidents: James Madison and James Monroe.
Therefore, the case of James McClure is NOT evidence FOR the birther claim that it takes citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
It is direct evidence AGAINST the claim, because it clearly establishes THAT BIRTH, BY ITSELF, WITHOUT THE PERSON HAVING HAD A US CITIZEN PARENT, IS ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT PERSON A UNITED STATES CITIZEN.
Again, think through this. If this were not the case, then Monroe and Madison could NOT have used McClure's birth in the United States as evidence for his US citizenship... because he would have been BORN a British citizen, and not a US citizen at all.
If birth alone were not sufficient to give McClure US citizenship, then he would have been a British baby living in the United States for the first 10 months of his life, and his birth here would have been irrelevant. It would not have been the thing mentioned in the letter. The letter instead would have said, "The accompanying affidavits establish that his father naturalized as a United States citizen while James was an infant here, and THAT fact makes him a US citizen."
But that's not what the letter said.
The letter said: The accompanying affidavits prove that James was BORN IN SOUTH CAROLINA AFTER THE REVOLUTION.
And furthermore, we have a letter from our Supreme Court that officially establishes that THAT FACT makes James McClure a US citizen.
Typing in all caps, with bolded letters and colored fonts won’t strengthen your incorrect argument. Nothing in what you quoted said that place of birth made McClure a citizen. Instead it cited applicable laws. If what you and other Obots believed were true, then there would have been no need for the 14th amendment ... and further, the Wong Kim Ark case wouldn’t have had to cite page after page of English common law trying to build a justification for declaring Ark to be a citizen (note: he was NEVER declared a natural-born citizen). Had McClure been born in England, he couldn’t have been a U.S. citizen. They had to establish birth on U.S. soil AND then look at the applicable laws (which is what your own quote says) to see if he was a citizen. The Treaty of 1783 applies here because McClure’s father naturalized and became loyal to the U.S. Had he stayed loyal to the crown, McClure, even if born on U.S. soil would have been recognized as a British subject. This principle was affirmed in Shanks v. Dupont and Inglis v. Sailor’s Snug Harbor.