Right. The ol' "I'll just cherry-pick the one point I think I can answer and skip the rest" technique. It's one I've encountered often.
I tried once, but you wouldn't shut the f*** up long enough for me to show it to you.
LOL. You act like this is some verbal debate or a Sunday morning talk show and I'm not giving you a chance to be heard. How is it that I'm impeding you from showing your supposed "evidence" when you're working in the quiet sitting at a computer?
Now, I don't see any point whatsoever in showing you evidence against your position.
Since you don't have such evidence, this is but more of your silly posturing.
You've been at this topic incessantly (or should I say "fanatically") for many years now. You've yet to show this other, "secret evidence" to anyone on any thread. You rail against the current state of "anchor babies" and "birth tourism," but at the same time you're just going to sit on this historical evidence that shows that the legal understanding went off-kilter very early on? Really? That's your posture here?
This "father-citizen" argument you make has trended very much against you on this Forum. You don't think you'll persuade me, but why not try to persuade others?
The simpler explanation remains that you don't have this "other evidence."
Apart from that, you deliberately LIE by omitting the fact that Samuel Roberts merely wrote up the opinion of the ENTIRE F*CKING SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, but you insist on characterizing it as "His" opinion.
He was the author. It is referred to as the "Digest of Judge Roberts" (see Preface to Second Edition). They approved it and submitted it to the Legislature as their collective report.
But even they are careful to note the deference to which their report is to be given:
"The Report which [the judges] have submitted, is, doubtless, entitled to high respect and consideration, as containing the opinions of men who rank in the highest grade of the Profession, and in the public confidence; but it ought to be carefully distinguished from a JUDICIAL DECISION, of the character of which is does not partake.
The distinguished characters who have made the Report, it is confidently presumed, would not wish that it should be so considered; but on the contrary, that whenever the question comes judicially before them, whether a particular English Statute, or any part of it, is or is not in force in Pennsylvania, they will hear without prejudice whatever may be urged on either side[.]" (Preface to First Edition, viii).
The preface then goes on for another few paragraphs as to why the Report is essentially obiter dicta.
Which leads me back to your earlier comment:
You will cite some later court decision from people who weren't there, and smugly believe you have trumped the point.
Yes, I will! Because even the Judges you're citing to say the same thing -- a later decision trumps our opinion here!!
In any event, it's a book about which English Statutes remain in force in the State of Pennsylvania; questions on citizenship which don't hinge on statutory construction are outside the scope of the project. Commentary on the later point is obiter dicta (within a book the authors characterize as being entirely obiter dicta). When William Rawle later pens his "A View of the Constitution," he's writing from the federal/Constitutional -- not state law -- perspective. And in writing on citizenship from that perspective, Rawle was not bound in any sense by what Roberts wrote, but was free (and no doubt did) take account of the more prevalent jus soli expressed by others.
Your "Rawle deliberately lied" point is another of your Sacred Cows that is getting eaten.
Do you really believe that Roberts could attribute to them such an assertion that US Citizenship is based on Vattel were it not regarded by those men as true?
I accept they didn't see cause to challenge that point. But the point is outside the objective of the Report (i.e., to indicate to the legislature what English statutes they believe remain in effect), so I can also see that it was the sort of tangential point that one doesn't necessarily address in giving comments/revisions lest the process drag on forever. And the only support for the statement given is a footnote with the opinion that adherence to the English rule (which the author then ties to perpetual allegiance) is incompatible with natural liberty. (Compare, by contrast, the far more researched and elaborate discussions in Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark.)
The fact that much contrary evidence against your position exists, is a very good piece of proof that your claim is just wrong.
Do you accept the reciprocal premise --that the fact that much contrary evidence against YOUR position exists is a very good piece of proof that YOUR claim is just wrong? Or in your illogical mind does this point operate only unilaterally?
I've never claimed the jus soli view was exclusive. (Justice Waite didn't; I see no reason to). What I claim is that that view commands the preponderance of the evidence in support. The 39th Congress believed so. As did the SCOTUS.
Again, if it were correct, there wouldn't be any contrary evidence, let alone so much of it.
This statement is simply ridiculous. By that reasoning NO point of view on any disputed matter could ever be deemed "correct" simply by virtue of someone holding a contrary opinion. Truth and the process of resolving a dispute don't operate by the Black Ball system.
And your assertion of "much" contrary evidence remains disputed. Apart from Roberts, the ambiguous McClure "case" (where resolution was attained by James Monroe sending a letter simply stating McClure was a citizen born in South Carolina with no mention of his father's status), and a bunch of your misreads (Otis, Story) and over-reads (Marshall, B. Washington, Waite), you don't have much of anything.
Oh, right, you still have that "super-secret, other" evidence.
And now I'll just skip reading anything further from you. I Don't need to read crap from an ignorant shithead who thinks he's smart. You've been spanked. Get over it.