Madison clearly states, after Ratification, that more legislative guidance is needed on matters of Citizenship:
Mr. MADISON.—I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentlemanis eligible to a seat in this House or not; but it will depend on the decision of a previous question,whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United States or not.From an attention to the facts which have been adduced, and from a consideration of the principles established by the revolution, the conclusion I have drawn is, that Mr. SMITH was, onthe declaration of independence, a citizen of the United States; and unless it appears that he hasforfeited his right, by some neglect or overt act, he had continued a citizen until the day of hiselection to a seat in this House. I take it to be a clear point, that we are to be guided, in our decision, by the laws and constitution of South Carulina, so far as they can guide us; and wherethe laws do not expressly guide us, we must be guided by principles of a general nature, so far asthey are applicable to the present case.It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced, more precisely defining the qualities of acitizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind have obtained in some of the States; if such a lawexisted in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; butsince this has not been the case, let us settle some general principle before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to theinference drawn from such principles.It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its forcesometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certaincriterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigateany other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that, colony.”