Why would it not match if Granny Dunham put down that information on an at home birth affidavit?
Is what a 'no?' My parents were citizens at my birth; their parents were each citizens at their births.
And your children? The most obvious answer appears to be conspicuously absent from your response.
My critique of your "out in the looney fringe, "2-citizen parent" theory is purely historical and legal.
Except that it isn't. It explains history far better than your theory ever did. Your theory has so many exceptions that it might as well be the rule. British Loyalists (of which William Rawle was) was an exception. Indians were an Exception. Slaves were an exception.
There are many millions of exceptions to your theory right there.
Citizenship being a matter of domestic (municipal) law; not international law? I've killed you on that one.
While it made me laugh pretty hard, I don't think it reaches the level of "killed". It's not the funniest thing you ever said, but it is in the top ten. Citizenship only exists because there are other nations. Were there no other nations, there would be no need for this thing called "citizenship" because all would be members of the same nation anyway.
The very concept of "citizen" requires other Nations, and therefore is not a consequence of "domestic law", but of International law; That is the legal recognition of the sovereignty over citizens of those other nations.
Gray being wrong about the legislative history of the 14th Amendment? I've killed you on that one, too.
I do have to admit that claim was pretty funny. You are arguing that our citizenship law is jus soli and has always been jus soli, so we have to pass a jus soli law because we don't need one. It's even funnier when you take umbrage at supporting "anchor babies" which is a direct consequence of your claim.
The "grandfather clause" being for Hamilton and other foreign born, not the native born like Washington, etc.,? I've given multiple historical and legal commentaries all to that effect.
If you've given any from a contemporary delegate, I haven't noticed, and I put no credibility into the commentary of people long afterward and who were not there.
That you lack any coherent explanation for how Bingham was supposedly (in your view) at odds with his "learned friend" Wilson, yet neither they nor anyone gave the slightest indication of disagreement?
Given the utter botch that the 14th has subsequently turned out to be, I should not find it at all surprising that the various proponents did not know what the other guys believed, but thought themselves in agreement.
It's axiomatic that they intended to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves, but I very much doubt that most of them had any intentions of creating "anchor babies" when they wrote it. That is just a result of the "law of unintended consequences."
You're good at calling names; you're inept at giving explanations to the problems I point out in your positions.
No one cares what a fool thinks. You may be a legend in your own mind, but here in the world of objective reality you are just a willfully ignorant loud mouth that makes up for in vehemence what he lacks in clarity of understanding.
And this is just a sampling of the errors I've found in your "6 years of historical research."M
This line also makes it into your top ten funniest prattlings.
Why would it not match if Granny Dunham put down that information on an at home birth affidavit?
An at-home birth affidavit that lists a hospital as a place of birth? That doesn't make sense. How about more of an Occam's Razor view: the b/c lists a hospital as place of birth because he was born in a hospital.
And your children? The most obvious answer appears to be conspicuously absent from your response.
Well, gosh. Since my parents were both citizens at my birth, that makes me a citizen. And I figured that the guy who's been running around this forum for years trying to look smart with his "partus sequitur patrem" line would then be able to figure out that status of my children.
But I will spoon-feed it to you: they were born and remain U.S. citizens.
It explains history far better than your theory ever did.
It's hardly my theory: it's the same theory clearly espoused by Swift, Tucker, Kent, Story, Sandford, the 39th Congress, and the SCOTUS. One looks only with great difficulty for anyone holding to your view.
The common law had already recognized exceptions to the jus soli. It's hardly a critique against my position (which says that we adopted the common law theory) to point out that it has exceptions.
One doesn't have to avoid your inane posts; but it does take time rebutting all the dumb points you make.
While it made me laugh pretty hard, I don't think it reaches the level of "killed". It's not the funniest thing you ever said, but it is in the top ten. Citizenship only exists because there are other nations. Were there no other nations, there would be no need for this thing called "citizenship" because all would be members of the same nation anyway.
It's clear you've never engaged in any type of formal argument (school debate, etc.) Because with argument and debate one actually has to back up one's assertions. Without that, it's mere opinion. What you give here is pure opinion.
So, yeah, when I assert that citizenship is a mater of municipal (domestic) law, I back up that assertion with a succinct, clear citation to the SCOTUS, and you in turn offer nothing but your opinion -- then, yeah, I've killed you on that point. Spin it and bluster away. It's true.
But you want more? OK: "Each state’s municipal law dictates on whom nationality shall be conferred." Oxford Biblographies
"Despite disagreements among student of jurisprudence regarding the precise relationship between international and municipal law, the established basic distinction is quite clear: municipal law is concerned with individuals; international law is concerned with states . . . Thus, it would seem to follow, municipal law provides state citizenship[.} Souice
Adding more is just further kicking the corpse of your argument.
You are arguing that our citizenship law is jus soli and has always been jus soli, so we have to pass a jus soli law because we don't need one. >
I said that the rule as to white persons has always been jus soli. See, e.g., the Virginia citizenship statute originally drafted by Jefferson -- the one Tucker gave as an example of U.S. law being accordant with Blackstone. All "white persons" born in the state were declared citizens. See also the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke" (cited in the House of the 39th Congress).
The 39th Congress made clear the CRA and the 14th Amendment citizenship provisions were declaratory of existing law, but with equal protection to black and others. You still haven't explained how -- if "existing law" required a citizen father -- those Acts could be said to be declaratory, since neither act requires a citizen father.
If you've given any from a contemporary delegate, I haven't noticed, and I put no credibility into the commentary of people long afterward and who were not there.
And given that there is no record of there being discussion or debate at the Convention about the meaning of NBC, which is such testimony necessary or even relevant? My point again is that I've make the assertion that the "G.C." was added for the benefit of the foreign born patriots like Hamilton. To support that, I offered a half dozen or more historical sources all affirming that point.
You deny that point, but you can't cite to ANYONE, contemporary or not, who states the reason the G.C. was added was because otherwise Washington, et al., would not be eligible. Again, in a rational world of argument and evidence, my point prevails over your opinion.
But, in fact, I did give a contemporary source -- James Madison -- who explains how those born on the continent "retained their birthright" as members of the local political community even as the secondary allegiance to the Crown was dissolved. At least twice I've cited his words; every time you've simply ignored it.
I very much doubt that most of them had any intentions of creating "anchor babies" when they wrote it.
In 1870 there was no restrictive border policy or a notion of "illegal aliens." The notion of an "anchor baby" didn't then exist, so of course they couldn't have intended that. Nor could they have intended NOT to allow it. Your argument is anachronistic.
Again, another stupid argument on your part.
No one cares what a fool thinks.
That would explain why -- when these debates have occurred on more active threads -- no one attempts to defend the arguments you make.
But you cared enough to assert cowardice that I hadn't replied. See, I know deep down inside you've developed that psychological need to be b*tch-slapped with regularity.