[DiogenesLamp]

There is no constitutional distinction between at birth and by birth. The Constitution just says “born.” The way the law looks at it is if you got your citizenship the moment you exited your mother’s womb, you’re in one category and if you got your citizenship at a later time, you’re in the other category.

Liberals make that distinction regarding "person" too. They regard a baby's status as first "non-person" then "person" after birth.

The pro-life/conservative viewpoint regards them consistently the same before or after birth. They are a "Person" before they were born, and they are a "Person" after they are born.

Our position on citizenship is exactly the same. A child is a specific sort of citizen before they are born, and they are the same sort of citizen after they are born. Their citizenship is inherent and natural, and they inherit it from the parents they have.

The Jus Sanguius position and the pro-life position are mutually consistent in this regard.

[Nero Germanicus]

I would think that someone might be able to find pro-life judges who would see a connection between the two issues, but that hasn’t happened yet,