“Why not?”
Because, as I’ve said, there is no U.S., for instance, by nature. There is no organized human society capable of having citizens whatsoever by nature. Those have to come into being before people can be citizens of them.
“So, according to you, and going by your emphasis of the Greek Polis and that civilization must predate civilization”
Civilization must predate citizenship, you mean?
“Then the nomadic Plains Indians weren’t citizens of any sort, not even of their own tribes, simply because they didn’t live in cities and due to them having no written positive law.
Got it.”
Yes, exactly. Keeping clear that by plains indians you mean hunter-gatherers with perhaps some minimal level of agriculture. Which is not to imply there was no civilization developed enough for there to be citizens in the new world. Just not amongst the indians you specify. Their tribes had members, and there was hierarchy. But there was no government and no citizenship except in a metaphorical sense.
“Yes, you have to set and qualify the parameters for what you will and won’t believe.”
Is this sarcastic? I can’t tell.
“That’s because you accept some instances of natural law and deny other instances when they don’t support your argument.”
Here, again, I have to ask why you think I arbitrarily chose to support guns and not natural citizenship rights? Because I’m a gun nut and love Obama, or what? Could it possibly be that I have actual reasons for preferring one to the other? For instance, could it be as simple as that the governments of which you are a citizen don’t exist by nature and have to form when societies get around to it? Or is it that anyone who disagrees with you must be doing it dishonestly?
“Despite @your earlier usage you give evidence with that statement that you really don’t understand the expression ‘term of art’”
This doesn’t speak to the quote you place it under. And yes, I do.
“Term of Art
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning.”
A particular meaning in a particular context, yes. Duh. What bearing does this have on what I said? Is “naturalized” a term of art which particularly means “made natural” in the context of citizenship, or are native citizens who birthers argue are “naturalized at birth” not eligible to be president? I believe you have to choose one or the other. There can be no effective difference between “natural born” and “made natural at birth.”
“Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore holds everywhere.”
Everywhere and in every time, I assume. We didn’t have different natural rights before England came to the new world, did we? Did we have the right to be U.S. citizens at birth if we were born in what would be Jamestown, for instance, before 1607? (I set it then to avoid controversy over Constitution citizenship vs. Articles citizenship vs. Continental Congress citizenship vs. state citizenship, etc.) No. No one can be a U.S. citizen by nature, because the U.S. has to exist for one to be a citizen of it.
Civilization must predate citizenship, you mean?
Oh, WOW! You really scored some points there!
Yes, exactly. Keeping clear that by plains indians you mean hunter-gatherers with perhaps some minimal level of agriculture.
I mean Plains Indians as in the Sioux, Cheyenne, Crow, Blackfeet, Comanche, Pawnee and others, not some creation of your mind. Funny then that many such tribes are referred to as sovereign Indian nations throughout our history. Why, those nations even signed treaties with the government!
But there was no government and no citizenship except in a metaphorical sense.
You just can't accept that there were tribal elders and councils, can you? And you can hardly be a member of a sovereign nation unless you were first considered a citizen of that nation.
Why do you belittle the American Indian so?
And, once again, the rest of your reply isn't even worth responding to.