I remind you again what James Madison, Father of the Constitution, thought:
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States...
"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States...
Yes, i'm quite familiar with your soundbite. It does not, however, sum up Madison's argument for Mr. Smith. It is if anything, and outlier in his point. Most of his argument deals with the Family being part of the community and how Mr. Smiths inherited lands are in South Carolina. Also, it has been pointed out by myself and others that When Mr. Smith was born, South Carolina operated under British Common Law, not American law.
Regardless, I have long conceded that quote from Madison to your side. Your side DOES have a few historical examples that support your theory. I've found far more that support mine, but any reasonable person has to admit your side has some. No doubt, not everyone got the memo that American Law revoked British Law on this issue.