This is the conclusion of a multi part series. To properly understand it you need to scroll to or link to the post entitled “Straw Men, Red Herrings, and Big Lies” and read it along with the comments from a reader named “Ellen.” THen starting with “Citizenship Debate: Introduction” this series attempts to answer her objections.)
So, after all of these parts, here is what I see as the bottom line for our little debate. You have just waded through material showing the contrasting opinions on this topic. All of this has simply been to show that, in accordance with the first assertion that started this, there is a divergence of thought on it even currently. After reading the initial assertion along with Ellen’s comments, you, the reader, will have a simple question to answer: “Did I mislead you when I asserted that this whole topic is a red herring to detract from more important issues, and, (and this is the part Ellen attacked) that it has not been truly settled by the courts?”
As the only judge in the courts of your own personal opinions, each of you gets to make that ruling as you see fit. You could certainly pick up research where Ellen and I have left off to further enlighten and inform your own conclusions. Which side you take is not the point of this; the point is that there is, in my opinion, more than one side that is still in play.
But if the only point of continuing or commenting is to post something where you will latch onto the parts you like and denigrate the parts you do not like, that is no longer reasoned discussion or debate. Personally I’m inclined to quit wasting time on a project that can have no practical value even if my conclusions were accepted as true but will only result in you selecting more quotes to support your position. All that is really being shown is that each of us can find resources to support our own positions. I did not think that was ever in question. Hammer away at it till readers are all brain dead if you wish but I am done with it, over it, and ready to move on.
If anyone, wishes to continue posting comments and arguing it out then I will allow those comments so long as they remain reasoned, civil, and do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks; those I will excise from the comment list. I, on the other hand wish to get back to the more important issues of the day and times and do not intend to respond again on this topic since, for me, I am satisfied in the validity of my position that it is unsettled.
But I do want to thank Ellen. Although this specific issue remains an irrelevant one to me, and a real time waster in and of itself, the research it has inspired – as all good research will do – has brought other things to my attention. Some of those are simply the kinds of fun stuff someone like me with an insatiable curiosity finds fascinating but some of which feeds into parts of the current political debate that ARE relevant for us. I would not have done that without the kick her comments inspired so I am grateful to her.
But now, can we get on to questions that actually have an impact? Even if i am right i am not convinced anyone would take any action in this case, and wsith the precedence set it will be hard to assert it in the future. But maybe the result will be that an amendment will be created that DOES answer it once and for all in the proper method.
One can only hope…