Replies

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.

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?

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.

Re the Naturalization Act of 1790

Yes, it reveals what they thought about children of American citizens born overseas. It doesn't say squat about those born on US soil. And I would point out to you that considering children of English subjects born overseas as "natural born" is also part of English law, from a series of acts starting in 1700 and going up through 1773. by the last listed, they included those whose fathers (but not mothers) were English subjects. Sounds a little like our Naturalization Act of 1790, doesn't it?

In some of your posts, it sounds like you are saying those you disagree with simply don't exist as law. Denounce all you want, but you can't argue the law out of existence by "challenging" people to "defend" them. Many here are not defending specific decisions, they are pointing out those decisions exist, and are currently accepted law. Arguing that those decisions are not law is pointless and makes you look like a kook. You will not "argue them out of existence," you can change the law/Constitution, or change the judges. But those judges we like best (assuming you do like Justice Scalia) will be unsympathetic because they know our law came from Common law.

Now that argument makes zero sense. Argue that it should be changed because it allows anchor babies - that makes sense. Argue that it enforces servitude on those born here? No one is forced to remain an American citizen if they don't want to. Anyone crazy enough to want to expatriate can easily do so. Servitude? You do have odd ideas. :)

I will be off line starting tomorrow morning (I will answer all posts up as of now.) So don't take my silence as unwillingness to answer and debate, or lack of ammunition. If this thread is still going on my return, I'll be back in the fray.