legal concepts in other countries have absolutely _nothing_ to do with constitutional rights in the U.S.
Moreover, the US Bill of Rights is an extension of the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta (the founders were British, after all). From Britannica's introduction to the US Bill of Rights[1]:
> The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689)…
Wikipedia[2] adds:
> The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215)
Both the Virginia Declaration of rights[3] and the Northwest Ordinance incorporate concepts found in the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, for example:
> Mason based his initial draft on the rights of citizens described in earlier works such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the writings of John Locke.
And where do you think they got habeas corpus from?
And finally, in the link I shared on jus soli[4], in the second line, it states:
> Jus soli was part of the English common law
I could go on but that seems enough. Not only is your claim completely erroneous, it's also not misguided to contrast the situation to show that it's not a strange or dangerous change.
Of course, if you - or anyone - were to address my actual question then you might have the beginnings of a point.
[1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-State...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights
While US law has its roots in English common law, and common law concepts were referenced by the Founding Fathers, it has absolutely no bearing on US constitutional law.
It's interesting from a historical perspective, but that's it.
Jus soli has nothing to do with the US constitution or US laws. Period.
