[philman_36]

This all was explained in detail in a Supreme Court decision in the late 1800s.
Get the dung out of your mouth Rogers and say what you mean. You're talking about Wong Kim Ark and you've been proven wrong so many times it isn't funny. You aren't even bothering with your usual cut and paste job this time.

And let's not forget about your not even knowing who the Founding Fathers deferred to in the formation of our system of government.

When you can't even show, for over an hour, despite prompt replies to my other questions, that you're aware of the works outside of Vattel that the Founding Fathers used in the creation of our Nation then I have no use for you and I will heap scorn upon you at every instance till you can't show your face on these boards without being mocked with ridicule and scorn by others!

[Mr Rogers]

Every court that has looked at the issue agrees with me. Every member of Congress and all 50 states agree with me.

And the USA has never followed Vattel’s theory of citizenship by parentage. In the US, unlike Vattel’s Switzerland, citizenship is based on birth location.

That is how it worked in the colonies, and they continued to follow that rule without change. As the Supreme Court ruled:

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

Notice: THE SAME RULE. In the colonies, and it “continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established”...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[New Jersey Realist]

I think Mr. Rogers, Post #103, pretty much takes the wind out of your sails. His reference makes for good reading. Maybe we can all get some rest around here on this issue and finally bury Vattel who seems to get far too much attention for no reason.