We didn't! And by pointing this out you are REINFORCING my point! :) The British did this. They did it countless times throughout their History. I recall reading explicitly of one man who was born in England of French Parents, and who was captured during one of England's ongoing hostilities with the French. He was held in prison because he was alleged to be a traitor to the crown. On the basis of jus soli, the crown claimed allegiance, and woe betide the person who didn't want to give it!
It wasn't until Queen Victoria permitted it that British Subjects could throw off their REQUIRED Allegiance to the British Crown. (And then only after reaching the age of maturity.) So it begs the question. How is a British Law which was designed to compel born OBEDIENCE to the crown compatible with the American Principle of Freedom and Independence from the crown?
Sorry to say, I find this ridiculous. Go argue with the courts, who I suspect will have little sympathy for such a bizarre theory.
If you find it ridiculous, you most likely do not fully grasp the concept. As for arguing with the courts, they simply regard anything outside their usual ritual as "blasphemy", and anyone bringing such as a "heretic."
I believe that's exactly what I said - anyone who doesn't wish to be an American citizen can renounce it. So it isn't "grabbing" or "forcing" anyone's allegiance.
But it is based on a law that is DESIGNED to do just that! We are referring to the pedigree of jus soli, not on how the United States has managed to apply it sans abuse.
The question is, was inclusion into our body of Federal citizenry based on a law designed to compel obedience to the Crown, or was it based on the principles of natural law that indicate the character and allegiance of the child is derived from that of the parents?
Actually, no. Look at the discussion and court cases around the issue. From the law.justia.com site on "Expatriation"
The history of the right of expatriation, voluntarily on the part of the citizen or involuntarily under duress of statute, is shadowy in United States constitutional law. Justice Story, in the course of an opinion,1264 and Chancellor Kent, in his writings,1265 accepted the ancient English doctrine of perpetual and unchangeable allegiance to the government of one’s birth, a citizen being precluded from renouncing his allegiance without permission of that government....
Ha ha ha ha ha... We've already established that certain personages in history were confused as to the nature of what is citizenship in this nation, Among them I would point out the British trained Rawle, but I would also point out that it is a contradiction of principle for a Nation based on the belief that they have the right to separate from the Crown, to require the same sort of allegiance that they themselves threw off from THEIR master. :)
While subsequent Lawyers and Judges may have been unclear on this point, I very much doubt the Founders were. Indeed, they wrote provisions for Slavery into the constitution in order to entice the Southern states into remaining with them. Someone could have just saved them a lot of time by telling them they could COMPEL the Southern States to remain in the Union, as did Lincoln some years later. Subsequent consistency of Principle has not always been America's strong suit.
The Expatriation Act of 1868 starts out "Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people..." So yes, the "perpetual allegiance" principal was first held to apply, then addressed and the right of expatriation was officially recognized. In contrast, I don't recall any statue proclaiming that jus soli was invalid.
I would point out that the founders likely had no confusion as to the right of expatriation being a natural right. Didn't Thomas Jefferson write something or other that said this:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I would suppose the founders are familiar with this document, seeing as so many of them signed it. :)
I guess it only took their posterity nearly a hundred years to gain the founders clarity on the issue.
“subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.”
Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 868 (1868); see also at 967 (Rep. Baily) (describing birthright citizenship as “the slavish feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance”)
Representative Woodward of Pennsylvania “It is high time that feudalism were driven from our shores and eliminated from our law, and now is the time to declare it.”
To blame just one is to avoid placing the blame on all where it rightly deserves to be placed.
The worst thing about these age old conflicts is that religion was often used as nothing more than a pretext for the accumulation of wealth and power solely for the sake of gaining wealth and power.
None were innocent. The innocent were those who died in droves as cannon fodder in the armies of those seeking wealth and power, not realizing that they were being used in such a manner.
Wrong. We are referring to a law which is designed to grant rights based on birth in a country. The rights of “subject” or “citizen” were much greater than the rights of an alien. Again, your theory is bizarre.
Ha ha ha ha ha... We've already established that certain personages in history were confused as to the nature of what is citizenship in this nation,
Your contention, as you sometimes contend that those who you disagree with were “ignorant” or “silly bastards.” Rather, there was disagreement about this, among many, some championing the right of expatriation in any situation, others who agreed that with the Revolution, inhabitants were free to choose American or England, but that in other circumstances it took mutual consent for expatriation. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists opposed expatriation from a nation, while Jefferson felt it was any man’s right. John Marshall was known to look favorably on “perpetual allegiance.” From Inglees v. Snug Harbor
He continued to reside in New Jersey after the passage of this law and until sometime in the year 1777, thereby making his election to become a member of the new government, and the doctrine of allegiance became applicable to his case, which rests on the ground of a mutual compact between the government and the citizen or subject, which it is said cannot be dissolved by either party without the concurrence of the other. It is the tie which binds the governed to their government, in return for the protection which the government affords them.Marshall, it may be noted, did not absolutely pronounce, reflecting the disagreements of the age in the absence of definitive law. In Murray v Charming Betsey he said
Whether a person born within the United States, or becoming a citizen according to the established laws of the country, can divest himself absolutely of that character otherwise than in such manner as may be prescribed by law is a question which it is not necessary at present to decide.,Joseph Story in Shanks v Dupont
The general doctrine is, that no persons can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens.This was a topic of debate, only finally settled with the Expatriation law. The Founders and early American legal thinkers did not conflate the doctrine of perpetual allegiance with jus soli the way your bizarre theory does.