You make a better point than you know. The British applied both "jus soli" (by right of birth on the soil) and "jus sanguinus" (by right of blood) in English Common law. As I have pointed out many times, they did this for a reason. They WANTED to claim anybody and everybody they could for any reason that they could.
British "subjects" is another way of saying British "Servants." That they wanted to claim you as a citizen was not for your benefit, but for the benefit of having cannon fodder for the orders of the crown.
People do not understand that the common law of England forced subjectude on people whether they wanted it or not, and now they argue that the law which imposed subjectude to the servants of the crown (being born on English territory) grants desirable AMERICAN citizenship to anyone who happens to be born inside it's borders. From a logical and practical sense, this is a ridiculous argument. The only reason that some in history argued for it is because most of common law was adopted, and they were apparently unaware that this aspect was specifically rejected.
Were we to be like England, we would lay any claim of citizenship on anyone we could, just for the purpose of exploiting them to our needs and wants. Your tongue in cheek idea in a nutshell! :)
Thanks for the response! I did have a vague understanding of that, but you stated it much, much better than I could.
What I see today is a very cozy and mutually satisfactory (to the powers that be) arrangement: we take the offspring of foreigners, and ask nothing of them (only that some do menial work, and that they all vote). Other countries seem happy to get rid of them, because if push came to shove the US would never really impose any kind of burdensome claim on these people.
The only people who don’t like it are the American workers, citizend, taxpayers and legal residents, and our leaders don’t give a damn.
Oops, another rant.
Thanks again.