Once again this is what Madison said:
"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.”
You say, “You're misdirecting again. Is is definitely true that place of birth is ONE criterion that applies in the United States, but it is NOT the ONLY criterion.” Of course its not the ONLY criterion but it is the ONLY criterion when Madison says, “it is what applies in the United States.”
Can’t you read a simple sentence?
You're the one applying misdirection when you say, "and it's why Madison cites the birthright of Mr. Smith through his ancestors."
How I take Madison's last comment is that "not only is Mr. Smith a natural born citizen but he is of good family stock dating back to....all good Americans." Madison is after all attesting to the character of Mr. Smith. You should investigate the concept of context.
Get out of the vacuum you live in!!!!!
Quote the ENTIRE paragraph. Quit leaving off the part that defeats your argument:
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 will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
Madison argues for Smith's birthright because his parents primary allegiance was to the colony, not to the sovereign, and that the will of the colony to dissolve from England dissolved the allegiance of those who were under the age of consent at the time of the Revolution. Otherwise, had the parents been alive and adhered to the crown, the child would have naturally followed their allegiance. This was established in Shanks v. Dupont, and reaffirmed in Wong Kim Ark through a secondary citation of U.S. v Rhodes.