Not one single Founder, Framer, legal expert, court case or judge, or anyone who ever knew any of the major Founders or Framers EVER said that a person who was born a citizen on US soil had to have citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.
Your claim is simply delusional.
It is absolutely clear, yet Jeff refuses to note or accept a jot of it. 100+ million Slaves, Indians, and Children of British Loyalists since the founding were denied citizenship though they met the birth on soil standard, and yet Jeff simply refuses to recognize the historical evidence. There had to be SPECIAL LAWS passed to GRANT them citizenship, Yet this idiot-bucket argues that they were "natural" citizens.
No, I don't. I never said any such thing.
Children of British Loyalists, who remained in the United States and took up their duties as US citizens, were native citizens of the Colony in which they were born. And when that Colony became a state, they continued to be native citizens of the same political community. It mattered not that that community was now called a "State" instead of a "Colony." Their political parents - The Crown of England and the political community in which they were born and lived - got a divorce. They ceased to be subjects of England, but continued as citizens of the community to which JAMES MADISON said they owed their PRIMARY allegiance.
Slaves were not considered citizens, because they were legally counted as "property" and not as "persons." There were also legal measures passed in some places that proscribed persons of African descent from citizenship on the basis of their race.
But in every Colony and State, the child born within that Colony or State, of white, European parents, was a citizen, whether his parents were citizens or not.
As for the Indians, they were members of separate nations that we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with other foreign governments. If they left their tribes and entered the society of the United States, and had children born as members of our political community rather than under the tribal government, then those children were natural born citizens as well.
And this is the situation as it was expressed by our legal experts, Congressmen, judges and courts.
It's not controversial, and it's not that hard to understand.
Once again you repeat the same lie. Both John Marshall and Bushrod Washington cited Vattel on Citizenship, Ambassador John Armstrong (WHO WAS A DELEGATE) explicitly said that James McClure was not a citizen because his father didn't naturalize before his birth. James Madison backed him up on this. James Monroe Wrote that an American born man was not a Citizen because his loyalty lay with England. (ALL my Authorities were DELEGATES.)
Lying Jeff is simply going to repeat his lie again. We all know how this works Jeff. We tell the truth, and you repeat your lies.
Children of British Loyalists, who remained in the United States and took up their duties as US citizens, were native citizens of the Colony in which they were born.
Once again, you simply ignore the ones i'm talking about. Nobody is discussing the Children of British Loyalists who became Americans, the point is regarding the Children of British Loyalists who remained loyal to the Crown. American born, but acknowledged by BOTH SIDES to be British Subjects, not American Citizens.
Once more we've had to wade through your obfuscationist twaddle so you can pretend to have addressed the point. Well you didn't, and I didn't expect you to because you can't.
Slaves were not considered citizens, because they were legally counted as "property" and not as "persons." There were also legal measures passed in some places that proscribed persons of African descent from citizenship on the basis of their race.
The Descendants of Manumitted Slaves were American Citizens. I have posted in the past many examples of such, but you simply ignore that piece of contrary information like you ignore anything which doesn't fit your desired outcome.
But in every Colony and State, the child born within that Colony or State, of white, European parents, was a citizen, whether his parents were citizens or not.
No, only the Children of those who came here to settle became American citizens, some through derivative naturalization and others by being born to naturalized Americans. The children of transient aliens remained loyal to their father's country. We recognized that, (Offspring of British Loyalists you kook) and THEY recognized that.
George Washington:
“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington, Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.
As for the Indians, they were members of separate nations that we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with other foreign governments.
Yes, they were EXACTLY like a Foreign Nation, except that their children didn't become Americans the way the children of OTHER Foreign nations did. (not till 1924) But they were Exactly alike, mind you!
If they left their tribes and entered the society of the United States, and had children born as members of our political community rather than under the tribal government, then those children were natural born citizens as well.
No they didn't. Not in the early days, The practice of allowing Indians to Naturalize was an artifact of the later 19th century. Earlier, they couldn't be citizens and it didn't matter where they were born. They could have been born in Philadelphia or Washington D.C., and they STILL wouldn't be citizens.
Once again, your theory has 100 million exceptions to it.
And this is the situation as it was expressed by our legal experts, Congressmen, judges and courts.
You mean all those ventriloquist dummies which sit on your lap and into who's mouth you put your own words.