Oh, I will. But if you follow your usual pattern, it won't help because you refuse to see anything that contradicts your pet theory.
To start, you said:
Use your brain lurky. What is a denizen PRIOR to receiving letters?? Answer: an alien. The issue of a denizen prior to denization (an alien) can not inherit and is NOT considered a natural born subject because of that. Shall we look at what Blackstone actually said on the specifics of children of aliens born in the dominions of England?
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.What exceptions? Those born in the dominion of the king but out of the king's ligeance: children of foreign ministers or ambassadors, occupying troops.
He also says of denizens
A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may.Let's break it down for you real sloooow.
I addressed Rogers v. Bellei and debunked your misconceptions in Post #571, #375 and #364. Sorry, that's three strikes. You're out.
You'd like that to be true, but your so-called "debunking":
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.Funny, no mention that the Justices thought this only applied to colonial statutes.
If this is what you think debunks clear statements by SCOTUS, no wonder you are so confused about the issue.
Yes it says "generally speaking." You understand that does NOT mean ALL children born of aliens??? Tell me you understand that.
Let's break it down for you real sloooow. Blackstone states that those born in England, even of alien parents, are generally natural born subjects (the exceptions listed above, born out of the king's ligeance.) A denizen can't inherit English lands from his parent, because the parent is an alien. The issue of a denizen, (if not a natural born subject) can't inherit English lands
Thanks. You're making my argument FOR me. The part underlined above is the point I was making. The only persons who are natural-born subjects if they are the "issue of a denizen" are those born in the country AFTER denization. The ones born IN THE COUNTRY before denization are still considered aliens. They do NOT have inheritable blood. A natural-born subject is one who has inheritable blood.
Children of aliens born within the ligeance are natural born subjects with all the rights of such, therefore they can inherit.
ONLY the ones born AFTER the denization of an alien. Read it again. The ones born before denization cannot inherit, which means they are NOT natural-born subjects. A denizen BEFORE denization is an alien, therefore the issue of this alien cannot inherit and is NOT a natural-born subject. Here's what Blackstone says about this again:
And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may.#364 you claimed "Right. Our "law" in this area follows English concepts, but natural-born citizen is EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment Funny, nothing in the 14th amendment says that.
No, the Supreme Court said this in WKA in the sentence that you have so much trouble understanding. I can teach you what it means, but I can't fix your intentional stupidity.
Except that Bellei clearly states in the opinion that we follow jus soli.
... in ONE area of law. Elsewhere in the decision it talks about citizenship at birth that does NOT follow jus soli. You're trying to make this mean something much broader than what the decision actually says.
Which is a much clearer statement than the Minor case where the court is very clear that there is doubt and that the case won't resolve the doubt.
Sorry, but there is NO doubt for the persons who are natural-born citizens. That is completely clear in Minor.
If you can't accept the Rogers v. Bellei clear statement that the US follows England in jus soli because the case was not about a citizen born in the US, how hypocritical of you to claim that Minor's statement of doubt is controlling when that case wasn't about citizenship at all, but about suffrage.
Minor was ABOUT citizenship in addition to suffrage. This was affirmed in Wong Kim Ark and in Ex Parte Lockwood. Selective ignorance does not help you here.
Your "debunking" in #561 consisted of "I like what I think they said in Minor v Happersett better!" in and claiming that Rogers V Bellei only applied to colonial statutes.
Mr. Quote Butcher. You're dropping the CONTEXT again, which I quoted in Post #571 (not #561). Read what the decision says:
These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.Funny, no mention that the Justices thought this only applied to colonial statute.
It was in the previous sentence in the decision (and as I've requoted it). It's why the part YOU quote says "Thus." Are you intentionally ignoring that for some reason??
If this is what you think debunks clear statements by SCOTUS, no wonder you are so confused about the issue.
The only person who is confused is you. You couldn't even get the post number right. We've just seen that you've ignored three specific points that completely debunk your belief in Bellei that is based on an out-of-context citation. That's either rampant stupidity or intentional ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty on your part.