[RC one]

The exceptions that Blackstone references were just that, exceptions arising as a result of the wars of the three kingdoms (the late troubles) and the English Reformation. The exception to the law is not the law, the law is law. You are posting only enough of Blackstone to support your position but ignoring the broader principle so I'll post the full quote here which does not, in fact, support your position of Jus Sanguinis birth citizenship being the law:

When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.

[Springfield Reformer]

LOL! There is a great deal of Blackstone out there to post. I provided the link precisely to supply anyone an opportunity to review the full context. The context you bring in is helpful but does not alter the central point at all. If anyone tells you the edge cases are not law, then you have been under very different legal instruction than I have been. The history of how a principle came to be is interesting, but once the principle is there, that’s what you have to deal with, and the fact remains that Blackstone’s use of “natural born” to describe foreign born children is clear evidence that this kind of edge case was not entirely alien (pardon the pun) to the founders’ frame of reference. Which again, BTW, give even greater weight to the NBC language used by the founders in the 1790 Act. It is nearly a perfect symmetry with the Blackstone account.

Peace,

SR