These are legal issues, and there are court rulings that address these issues. And THAT is what the thread is about.
This thread is nothing more than a continuation of the previous argument as to whether Barack Obama constitutes a "natural born citizen" under Article II as the founder's understood it. You seem to believe they were morons, and that they set the bar at the amazingly low level of just being born inside our borders, and I think they didn't spell it out more clearly because they never conceived that subsequent generations could be so stupid.
Jus Soli is contrary to the interests of any Free nation. That it serves the will of a King quite well is obvious, but to a Free nation it is a bane. Jus Soli only works in the best interest of a nation that uses the principle to force it's newly claimed subjects to serve the ruling power. Giving people citizenship rights with no commiserate requirement of loyalty or responsibility is first class idiocy.
Yes, I can imagine the conversation now:
Founder 1: So we've decided on qualifications. All Representatives must have been U.S. citizens for at least seven years, and all Senators must have been U.S. citizens for at least nine years.
Founder 2: You sure it's OK to have naturalized citizens running our country?
Founder 1: Yeah, that's fine.
Founder 2: OK then. And the President?
Founder 1: Oh, he needs to be born on U.S. soil and both his mother and his father must have been U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. The only way we can ensure his loyalty is through the citizenship of his parents, you know.
Founder 2: Well that's awfully specific. We'd better be clear about that in the text.
Founder 1: No, we'll just write "natural born citizen." They'd be morons to not realize that implies an absolute requirement of parental citizenship at the time of one's birth.
Incidentally, something tells me that the U.S. Supreme Court could hand down a unanimous ruling tomorrow, written by Chief Justice John Roberts himself, that Obama is a natural born citizen, and that "natural born citizenship" does not require parental citizenship, and DiogenesLamp would still be arguing that the Supreme Court is wrong.
Absolutely incorrect.
Jus Soli is contrary to the interests of any Free nation.
Go argue with James Madison, then.
One has to look at the historical context, not by today's standards. In context, there was a big empty country, and a need to attract more citizens, especially those with skills. It was also a time when nine of the very Founders were born overseas (Scotland, Ireland, England, West Indies). Today, we have unwanted and illegal immigrants - a very different situation from the time of the Founders.
It is the job of SCOTUS to apply the Constitution to the fact situation presented to them. It not their job to apply what they think is the right thing to do. That is the mentality of liberal activist judges. For someone who claims to be a conservative, you seem to have a lot of problems with the Constitution.