Replies

You harp on that trivial point when the larger point is that Congress granted "natural born citizen" status to the Children of American's born abroad, while refusing even basic citizenship to the children of non-resident foreign fathers.

It's far from trivial to misinterpret a law meant to apply to those born abroad as applying to those "born on the soil." As Scalia says, as Rogers v Bellei says, as Ankeny says, we follow the common law. Common law says "born on the soil" = "natural born."

Lest you have difficulty with the simplified logic of this act by congress. 2 citizen parents = Natural born citizen, soil unimportant. Ergo, Natural born citizen status not tied to soil. Non-Resident father, no citizenship at all!

Fallacy. Case 1 is citizenship by statute passed by Congress. Your reasoning assumes that those not covered by the statute are also subject to the same rules - false.

It isn't TRUTH or LAW being decided, it's POLITICS disguised as LAW! Why you think we should accept and respect this bastardized process I cannot fathom.

Because United States law, however flawed, is better than the law of the jungle. Some law, some decisions will be flawed - legislators and judges are human and thus flawed. Take away all law, or disobey what you don't like, and we have chaos. I am not in favor of each person as his own law - are you?

Regarding the "naturalization act of 1790, sometime lurker writes:
It's far from trivial to misinterpret a law meant to apply to those born abroad as applying to those "born on the soil." As Scalia says, as Rogers v Bellei says, as Ankeny says, we follow the common law. Common law says "born on the soil" = "natural born."

I am not misinterpreting the law. I am pointing out that it conforms to the opinions of the constitutional delegates. A point that I cannot seem to get you to comprehend. It does not "define" natural born citizen, it REVEALS what they thought it meant.

Fallacy. Case 1 is citizenship by statute passed by Congress. Your reasoning assumes that those not covered by the statute are also subject to the same rules - false.

I am pointing out that they would only pass laws which were consistent with their beliefs. The "naturalization act of 1790" merely reveals what those beliefs were.

I am not advocating the blatant violation of wrongly decided "laws". I am advocating the denouncement of them, and that their proponents be challenged to defend them constantly. They should be shown to be foolish and argued out of existence. Reductio ad absurdum.

The adherence to the concept of jus soli is one such example of something that is very foolish. It serves no useful purpose to any government but a monarchy where it lays a claim of servitude on those unfortunate enough to be caught by it.