Canada has its roots in British law, it was illogical of you to assume they had no such concept as natural born.
---
And if this Canadian definition is worth quoting, would not it also be worth adopting?
Oh, please. Your conversational tactics are exceedingly foul. You have the arrogance to call someone a dumbass over something you obviously have NO CLUE over, don't have enough humility to even admit you were wrong, then want to imply the my posting of the quote in order to disprove your ignorance has something to do with a desire to adopt Canadian law.
The Founders fought a war to rid themselves of British rule, and anyone who wants to give the federal government the prerogatives of a King can get stuffed as far as I'm concerned.
You think you know something about this subject? Then I reiterate the dummass comment.
The whole point about the US conception of a Natural Born Citizen derives from Vattel and not from Blackstone. That's the first point.
The second point is that Canada, unlike the United States, has no law that requires mental contortions and gymnastics to understand. You read the statute and you know the law. When Canadians use the term "natural born citizen" it is entirely congruent with "citizen by birth" because they define it that way BY STATUTE.
As we ought to do. That was, is and remains my point.And to make my point I don't need to equivocate, as you do.