[MamaTexan]

There's a rather interesting section titled "The Jus Soli and the Jus Sanguinis" just after the first section.

That's the issue though. The paper is based on an entirely false premise.

The United States, Great Britain, and many Latin American countries traditionally have favored the jus soli over the jus sanguinis as a rule for acquisition of citizenship by birth.

Laws are defined legal procedures. She speaks of 'traditions', then tries to imply they impact law.

How can a naturalized at birth citizen be 'favored' over a natural-born one, anyway? If that were true, why the enumerated qualification of natural-born in the Presidential Article?

Until the 14th Amendment, where, despite Constitutional enumeration, Congress gave itself the power to naturalize citizens on a national basis and bypass the Sovereign States, there was no question concerning citizenship, it was either inherited by blood [natural law] or obtained via the Constitutionally specified legal procedure [naturalized].

I can also find nothing about this article that says it is even peer reviewed. It's just an article in a legal publication by a law school professor.

[philman_36]

Laws are defined legal procedures. She speaks of 'traditions', then tries to imply they impact law.
That's why I said it was "a rather interesting section".

I can also find nothing about this article that says it is even peer reviewed. It's just an article in a legal publication by a law school professor.
Just more distraction and the usual tactics, as is typical, of the originating poster.
Still wanting just to make a bloody mess of things.