Replies

> Are you saying that the Founders considered themselves aliens in the country they had just created, and that every single non-loyalist resident of the new United States had to take a loyalty oath before they were considered citizens? I'll have to ask for some documentation to support that claim.

I just did

No you didn't! You quoted the Naturalization Act and offered some alternative history scenario, but you haven't offered any documentation that every existing resident of the fledgling US had to appear in court to make an "oath or affirmation" of loyalty in order to be considered citizens. There should be some historical record of that process if it actually happened.

Okay, so the intent of something isn't important [like the intent of the 14th Amendment] unless you say it is[like how the intent of Wong Kim Ark is more important that the decision].

I didn't say anything about the intent of WKA, only its effects. I don't pretend to be a mindreader (which is why I stay away from confident assertions about what other people "would have done").

but you haven't offered any documentation that every existing resident of the fledgling US had to appear in court to make an "oath or affirmation"

{sigh}

From the top of HERE, under 'The Meaning of Natural Born Citizen in Early America'

November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”

You've seen these repeatedly at the top of the same mega-post and have asserted, more than once that you agreed with it.

Are you now saying you don't know WHAT they are or why they are worded they WAY they are?

-----

I didn't say anything about the intent of WKA, only its effects.

The intent is the cause of the effect, so your reason for pointing out the difference was what, exactly?