Or Samuel von Pufendorf's 1673 De officio hominis et civis juxta legem naturalem libri duo (On The Duty of Man and Citizen According to the Natural Law Two Books)
"The duration of the citizens' particular duty is, so long as they fill the office from which the duty springs; and when they leave the same, the latter too expires. In the same way the general duty lasts as long as they are citizens. But they cease to be citizens, if they leave with the express or tacit consent of the state, and fix the abiding-place of their fortunes elsewhere; or if for some crime they are exiled and deprived of the right of citizenship; or if they have been overpowered by the enemy, and compelled to submit to the rule of the victor."
Here is Cunningham's dicitionary
https://archive.org/stream/newcompletelawdi01cunn#page/n504/mode/1up
BTW, During the debates over the 1795 Naturalization Act, Congressman Giles proposed an amendment that would require immigrants with titles of nobility to renounce the title before becoming naturalized as an U.S. citizen. Mr Hillhouse of Connecticut believing the amendment did not go far enough and proposed the following hypothetical case;
"If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted." Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046
How can a nobleman come to the United States, not become a citizen but have children who are natural born citizens?
https://archive.org/stream/newcompletelawdi01cunn#page/n504/mode/1up
No matches found. The word "citizen" does not seem to be present in that dictionary. I'm wondering if it was even present in ordinary English dictionaries, let alone a Law dictionary.
"If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted." Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046
Great find. I need to stick that somewhere where I can find it down the road. I don't understand how I missed it before. I've searched those archives for the words "natural born citizen".
How can a nobleman come to the United States, not become a citizen but have children who are natural born citizens?
Well I looked up William Giles. He was neither a Constitutional Convention delegate, nor a member of a ratifying legislature. He was 13 when the Declaration of Independence was signed by Congress. Ergo, he could have an uninformed opinion on the topic.
Also, in the case of Virginia, there was a state law that would grant children citizenship in Virginia simply from having been born there.
Given that at the time, the overlap between children born to a Citizen father and children born in the United States is very nearly 100%, I don't believe a great deal of effort was made to draw a distinction between the two.
"If we pass the present amendment, the construction must be, that an alien, after residing in this country, abjuring his allegiance to his own, offering to become a citizen of, and taking the oath of fidelity to, the United States, is in the possession of the rights of a privileged order to which he may have belonged; and further that their rights are hereditary, unless he shall, agreeably to the amendment, come forward and renounce them. But what will be the consequences of him not renouncing? Most clearly that he retains and possesses them. A nobleman, then, may come to the United States, marry, purchase lands, and enjoy every other right of a citizen, except of electing and being elected to office. His children, being natural born citizens, will enjoy, by inheritance, his title, and all the rights of his nobility and a privileged order he possessed, an idea which ought not, either explicitly or impliedly, to be admitted." Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress 2nd Session, January 2nd, 1795 page 1046
A good find, indeed. Hillhouse was a contemporary of Zephaniah Swift, who likewise wrote that same year:
"It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection . . .The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens." Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut (1795)
You may have read Michael Ramsey's paper on "The Original Meaning of 'Natural Born.'" Ramsey cites to Swift to show how the meaning of "natural born" conveyed the jus soli meaning from earliest post-Constitutional days:
Swift's treatise on Connecticut law, mentioned above, even more clearly adopts English law. Swift directly ties the status of "subject" to birth in sovereign territory, describing "natural born subjects" as those "born within the state" and later specifically saying that the children of aliens "born in this state" are natural born subjects.86 Swift also included an explanation of the rule, based on the idea of allegiance to territorial sovereign at birth in return for protection, that closely tracks Blackstone.87 Like Madison's assessment, Swift's description accords with English law and is flatly inconsistent with Vattel.
Ramsey also notes the interchangeability of "subject" and "citizen" as used in the post-Revolutionary period, citing, inter alia, to the Massachusetts naturalization acts:
Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" interchangeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular names individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) "natural born subjects" of the state82 and (in others) "natural born citizens."83 As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts refer to "natural born subjects" during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution."
So adoption of the term "citizen" was somewhat gradual. It was not, contrary to the ill-informed opinion of some, some great paradigm shift. It was a term used by Montesquieu and other illustrious political writers. Attribution solely to Vattel is result-driven poppycock.