[philman_36]

You misunderstand me. I cited the “jus soli” portion which is indeed in Rogers v. Bellei.
Then why did you say it wasn't?
@You appear to have taken this from http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, and the writer acknowledges that he can't recall where he got it from. He thinks it might be Rogers V Bellei, but I can assure you it isn't, especially with this in the opinion:...
Your "assurance" was wrong as I clearly demonstrated.

I should have been clearer in my response.
I agree. Sometimes retrospect can be an ugly thing.

[philman_36]

Let me try that again...
Your "assurance" was wrong @as I clearly demonstrated.

Fixed.

[sometime lurker]

I think you're still misunderstanding. I said the quote he used in #387 wasn't in Rogers v Bellei, particularly since the Rogers v Bellei opinion included the jus soli portion I quoted.

Googling his quote brings one to this site. The quote from #387 is posted there, along with the writer's admission that he is not sure where it came from, he thinks it might be Rogers v. Bellei or one other case (which I can't find the text of online.) His quote is not in Rogers v. Bellei, and indeed, the "jus soli" portion of Rogers v. Bellei contradicts his quote, showing that considering Rogers v Bellei as the source was very inconsistent with the R v. B opinion.

And now I really should be working - so no more posts from me for a while.