I've down voted this question because there is a lot of fluff that stilts the question, to the point the TLDR is worthless. Every citation time stamped after 1857, despite the known failings of Scott v Sanford, is a waste of text. This question is a step short of explicitly promoting or discrediting a political clause.

@Alexei "too long" is not the reason users cited for voting to close the question. The wild accusation "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center." was cited by no less than 5 users at this board. Can edit to remove all but the first two paragraphs of the Birthright Citizenship and Natural Rights By Paul Gottfried quote. Will that suffice to address "too long" concern?

@Alexei Shortened question.

@Alexei Even if the question were shortened to a single paragraph, since the reasons cited for placing the question "on hold" make absolutely no sense, it is probable that the same lack of sense could again be displayed at this board in the form of a close vote providing the same wild accusation for reason - without any proof whatsoever to substantiate the baseless claim. The primary and secondary sources cited at the question are not at issue; they are predominantly records of the United States government itself.

@guest271314 Yes, they are records of the US, but how are they pertinent to questioning the existence, and legal methodology, behind the citizenship of those present at the founding of the nation? All they do is how how the concept of citizenship has been withheld, from certain subsets of the population, without the context of why. Neither SCOTUS decision is pertains to the Founders, so the leading inference available is that they've been included to show the racism of the US. Opinions about the 14th Amendment, contentious they may be, don't influence the citizenship of the Founders.

@guest271314 Going further, the critique isn't about the length, but that the citations don't inform or clarify the question. Instead, they belong to a separate question, or answer entirely. Something like "What are the possible racist connotations of methods citizenship has been withheld in US history?" Wong Kim Ark is a particular answer to that question, especially when considering the protectionism restrictions placed on East Asian migration throughout the History of the United States.

@guest271314 You're asking a question about the citizenship of the Founders at the formation of the Nation. How does current US Code, the decisions in Scott or Wong Kim Ark, or the 14th Amendment influence the determination on the Citizenship of the Founders? To that end, I've edited the question to remove the superfluous citations.

@guest271314 That is not the descriptor of "good-faith" as used in the reasoning for closure. Please refer to this meta post

@DrunkCynic Why did you edit the question? The content of the question goes to exactly how persons can become U.S. citizens, and if the Framers, Signers, Founding Fathers employed any of those methods themselves to become citizens of the U.S. - if they were in fact citizens of the U.S. at all. Does your edit to the question change your wild accusation of "This question is a step short of explicitly promoting or discrediting a political clause."? If not kindly return the question to its previous form.

My reasoning for editing the question is detailed in the Edit Log. The removed citations are not pertinent to understanding the citizenship of the founders.

@guest271314: "What they thought is irrelevant", since you were wondering why that reason for closing was used their thoughts seem very relevant. """faith" is for religious adherents", yes, but again irrelevant since good faith is very much for politics and law. "The content of the question goes to exactly how persons can become U.S. citizens", yes, in various ways between the 1850's and now, which means it's completely unrelated to people living 70 years prior.

@Giter No, not completely unrelated. Faith has no role in politics. If you choose to assign a value to "faith", where "good" or "bad", that is merely your own decision, not a decision another individual has to concur with and adopt. Again, we disagree on both points that you made.

@guest271314: You only talked about one of my points but said you disagreed with both and I had three, but I digress. Either way, not only are we not talking about religious faith here, we're not even talking about secular faith(i.e., strong conviction or belief). We're talking about 'good faith' as a single term, which is, as the Cornell Law page I linked would've told you,"A term that generally describes honest dealing", nothing religious about it.

Your reliance on ad homonym attacks towards those critical of the premise is demonstrative. Further, you've been provided a link to what constitutes good faith on this stack exchange. Separated from any religious connotations, that is the communities position on good faith attempts for questions and answers.

I answered the question as it should have been, reflective of the edits I made, restraining myself to the topic of the Citizenship of the Founders and the mechanisms through which it was established, with a minor aside to the first immigration standard of the Nation.

@guest271314: So, when people close a question because they don't believe it is a good faith effort to learn, that's what they mean: that you aren't honestly trying to learn more about politics. And when many of your questions are 90% citations and discussion about sources that aren't in any way applicable to the topic you're trying to learn about, it's easy to see why they might think you aren't acting in good faith.

@guest271314 It doesn't matter if you didn't ask me to edit the question. "Stack Exchange is a collaborative website. Users are encouraged to edit each other's content. When you post something on Stack Exchange, you do not have final say about it.". I made the question better by removing the superfluous material that wasn't germane to the point at hand. This correct would likely have removed the complaints that motivated members to close it.

In rolling back the edit, respawning the points that are superfluous, you've solidified the perception that you are trying to make a point with this question. This also serves to reaffirm the impression given by the negative record demonstrated in your previous questions, and in some cases the answers you provided to your own questions.

@guest271314 Further, I do not intend to get into a pitch rollback edit battle over this agenda'd question. Enjoy your messaging.