I have been trying to find the focal point of this argument.
I think it's true that the constitution regards Jus Solis (from the land or place) and the principle for natural born status.
I think it's true that Jus sanguinis (from descent or blood), is a valid principle used by US code since the founding, it appears in it's naturalization function..
If the rights of citizenship transfer to the child regardless of place, under certain circumstances, then how is it that rights transferred from a natural born citizen change to become a restricted citizenship?
I think that probably sums up my question.
“If the rights of citizenship transfer to the child regardless of place, under certain circumstances, then how is it that rights transferred from a natural born citizen change to become a restricted citizenship?”
In the case of a child born abroad and in the allegiance and jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign with a U.S. citizen father, the U.S. citizen father can be a natural born U.S. citizen or a naturalized U.S. citizen. From the point of view of natural law and natural principles, such a child has a divided set of natural born affinities and loyalties. Due to the place of birth and the protections provided by the foreign sovereign at birth, the child acquired a natural affinity to the foreign sovereign and the place of birth in the foreign sovereign’s jurisdiction. In fact, such a child has the option to naturalize and adopt an allegiance and loyalties to the foreign sovereign while rejecting the allegiance to the father and the father’s sovereign United States. By comparison, a natural born citizen does not have such an option at birth and must expatriate after birth to naturalize in allegiance to the foreign sovereign. Due to this difference inherent to the circumstances of a birth abroad in the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign, the father simply cannot transfer rights which were inherent to the birth of the child rather than being transferred form the father. This is why the frequently used description of transferring of the father’s rights is contrary to what is actually taking place.