Replies

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.

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.

Since it's the only place that seems to have the case...
@Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor - 28 U.S. 99 (1830)The case of McIlvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cranch 211, which has been relied upon, will not reach this case. The Court in that case recognized fully the right of election, but considered that Mr. Coxe had lost that right by remaining in the State of New Jersey not only after she had declared herself a sovereign state, but after she had passed laws by which she pronounced him to be a member of, and in allegiance to the new government; that by the Act of 4 October, 1776, he became a member of the new society, entitled to the protection of its government. 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.

@Shanks v. Dupont - 28 U.S. 242 (1830)The marriage of Ann Scott with Shanks, a British officer, did not change or destroy her allegiance to the State of South Carolina, because marriage with an alien, whether friend or enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife.

The general doctrine is that no person can, by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens.

The subsequent removal of Ann Shanks to England, with her husband, operates as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance, and fixed her future allegiance to the British Crown by the treaty of peace in 1783.

The Treaty of 1783 acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states were virtually absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown; all those who then adhered to the British Crown were deemed and held subjects of that Crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between states and the inhabitants thereof.

I have delayed responding to you so as to contemplate how an argument might be crafted to penetrate that layer of defensive denial surrounding you. You seem to be wholly content to believe in legal theories which grant (under a stretched interpretation) a technical compliance with some words, but allow for a total violation of the principle involved; That being to prevent unwanted foreign influence in the office of our chief executive.

That your interpretation yields "natural born citizens" who are completely unloyal "Americans" does not seem to cause you the least bit of concern. Likewise the notion that an interpretation that does not accomplish the explicit task for which it was designed, and therefore MUST be an incorrect interpretation, also holds no significance for you.

What I keep returning to is a conclusion that there is no reasoned path to your mind, and efforts to seek one out are destined to fail. I do however, have one last argument, though I doubt it will work either.

Let us consider the Israel to be akin to America, and let us consider some Jordanian born Palestinian to be the equivalent of a Nigerian Communist on temporary visa to America.

If the aforementioned Palestinian man visits Israel and has a child in Israel with an Israeli Palestinian, let's assume he is therefore (according to your reckoning) a "natural born citizen" of Israel. Let us further assert that his Father never became an Israeli citizen, and that his mother and subsequent Egyptian step-father taught their child the usual Palestinian Hatred of Israel that they seemingly all grow up with.

As the Child grows up, he abjure's his father's Muslim faith and becomes a devotee of Reform Judaism. (so he says) Due to a combination of the vote from the Entire Arab population of Israel and all the members of the Labor party and a Partisan Left-Wing Propaganda spreading Israeli Media which covers up all derogatory information about him, He stands a good chance of wining the Prime Minister's slot, where he promises to cut Israel's defenses by 50% and eliminate Israel's atomic bombs.

Would it be out of place to point out that this is NOT the sort of man to whom the founders referred when they created the "natural born citizen" requirement? Would they have regarded this man as acceptable within their definition?

Please don't assert that such would never happen, or that Israeli law doesn't work like ours, because those arguments are just attempts to dodge the question. Face the question forthrightly and simply answer, Is this what anybody had in mind when they defined "natural born citizen" for the purpose of keeping out foreign influence?

On the other hand, forget it. I know better than to attempt this, because you will simply not answer this question honestly. Silly me. Who uses honesty in a debate? Sure, the "natural born citizen" of Israel is perfectly legitimate, and no one should worry about how he grew up with a complete un-loyalty to Israel. What was I thinking?

We are referring to a law which was based on the divine right of Kings to claim as subjects anyone born on his land. It is like pointing out that even though Christmas is a Federal Holiday, it is based on a tenant of belief in the Christian Religion. As jus soli is at origin a monarchical law, so is "Christmas" at origin a "Christian" holiday. One cannot legitimately claim a total separation between a practice and it's origin.

That there was dissent among the founders on certain issues is incontestable. That is why they were initially divided between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. (I will take a moment to point out that the Anti-Federalists were absolutely correct in every argument they made against the Federalists, as demonstrated by the subsequent history of abuse by the Federal Government. Such a thing as the Civil War was pooh phooed by the Federalists as ridiculous and impossible! :) ) Again, some founders had consistency of principle, and others simply didn't see it.

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.

Isn't it funny that to become an American an immigrant has free will to become one, but to become something else he must have the Government's permission to leave? There's that consistency of principle problem again. In any case, John Marshall acknowledges that the compact between government and a citizen can be abrogated by Mutual consent, which is a tacit admission that it isn't the same thing as "perpetual allegiance" which cannot be abrogated at all.

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.,

Again, I read that to imply that it is possible for a citizen to do so. To suggest that one may immigrate to this nation and become a citizen, (thereby throwing off your former citizenship) but may not do it in another country is simply a blatant hypocrisy.

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.

Meaning, "We respect your right to do it to OTHER countries, but not to us. " I'm not terribly impressed with Justice Joseph Story.