You are correct. That is because they considered it IRRELEVANT to "natural citizen" status.
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?
Absolutely! And THAT aspect of English law was specifically adopted by statute! Thank you for making my point for me. :)
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.
That may be what you read, but that is not what I write. I argue that Lawyers and Courts get stuff wrong. The very few examples you provide are such cases. You have acknowledged that Courts can and do get things wrong. I have demonstrated by citation of first principles that this is the case in those examples you have put forth such as Wong Kim Ark.
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.
You just admitted that our "naturalization act of 1790 was very like the "English Fathers" common law. If your theory is correct that our laws governing citizenship are based on the English Common law, then what need would there have been to Create this specific aspect of it through statute? Hmmm????
If it already existed as an aspect of that Same English Common law which you keep citing, it would have been unnecessary to articulate it by the passage of a new law. The fact that they did so demonstrates that they did not simply keep the English law on citizenship.
Now that argument makes zero sense. Argue that it should be changed because it allows anchor babies - that makes sense.
Which corresponds to what I said. It serves no purpose for a free society to create such "instant citizens". It causes a detriment to our society because of non loyal people claiming our benefits without a commensurate obligation placed upon them.
Argue that it enforces servitude on those born here?
You are failing to understand what I am saying. It does not force servitude on those born here, because we are a free society. Automatic citizenship for transient aliens is not beneficial to us BECAUSE we do not force servitude on them. On the other hand, the English Monarchy which created the jus soli principle, DID, in fact make servants out of them. If Transient Alien's children are to be made into "subjects" required to serve the needs and desires of the state, then it makes perfect sense to push them into this status for any pretext, such as being born within someone's borders.
Jus Soli benefits a monarch desirous of gaining "subjects." (Servants.) It DOES NOT benefit a free nation. It is detrimental to a free nation, as the occurrence of "anchor babies" aptly demonstrates.
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. :)
You have an odd understanding of my ideas. Yes, Americans are free to be a citizen/subject of whatever nation they so choose. In a monarchy though, they are chained to perpetual allegiance and servitude to the monarch. Jus Soli makes SENSE if used in this manner. It makes no sense whatsoever for US to do it.
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.
Well, as you currently seem to be the only person on your side that I see worth the trouble of debating, I suspect this discussion is going to take a lull until you return.
You are correct. That is because they considered it IRRELEVANT to "natural citizen" status.
Your opinion, founded on very little. By those standards, there would be no "natural born" citizens from before the naturalization act, which is obviously not true. If you look at the debates in the Congressional Globe, Feb 4th 1790, p 1160, In the midst of discussing terms of naturalization for aliens:
The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III.
And THAT aspect of English law was specifically adopted by statute!
So are you saying if not specifically adopted by statute, it doesn't exist in American law? (A surprise to Justice Scalia and other Justices!) That having mentioned "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, they did not have a clue what it meant until February of 1790? That's absurd. The Naturalization Act did not apply to those born on American soil. They did not have to "naturalize" or clarify the situation of those born on American soil because they were already natural born.
You have acknowledged that Courts can and do get things wrong.
Of course they get things wrong, they're human and failable. But even when wrong, it is still considered current law. You don't erase the law by claiming it is wrong.
I have demonstrated by citation of first principles that this is the case in those examples you have put forth such as Wong Kim Ark.
Sorry, but you haven't. All you have demonstrated is that you disagree with the decisions, and think they should be different. WKA accords with our heritage of common law. Change it by changing the Constitution, not by denying it out of existence.
You just admitted that our "naturalization act of 1790 was very like the "English Fathers" common law. If your theory is correct that our laws governing citizenship are based on the English Common law, then what need would there have been to Create this specific aspect of it through statute? Hmmm????
See the quote above. England passed a statute for this, in 1697 because this wasn't covered by common law. If it had been, no statute would have been necessary.
On the other hand, the English Monarchy which created the jus soli principle, DID, in fact make servants out of them. If Transient Alien's children are to be made into "subjects" required to serve the needs and desires of the state, then it makes perfect sense to push them into this status for any pretext, such as being born within someone's borders....In a monarchy though, they are chained to perpetual allegiance and servitude to the monarch.
Bizarre idea, and not consistent with English history of the time. Many wanted the rights of English subjects, which were mostly superior to other countries (prior to the American Revolution). A transient alien could always leave, with his children, and return to his place of origin. This is a strange argument, with no history to back it up.