> ““Rule of naturalization” means Congress decides who is and who is not a natural born citizen.”
I think you have confused natural born citizen with naturalized citizen. And then there is a different definition for citizen by birth.
I never said English Common Law lays precedent to the US Constitution. The only influence I have seen where English Common Law comes into play are in definitions to resolve meaning and usage that were used by the Founders.
The phrase ‘natural born’ refers to a birth from two parents having no allegiance to any other nation or jurisdiction, meaning two citizen parents.
Whether a child was born on US Soil, I have always seen the condition that a child be born on US Soil or in its possessions. A US embassy is a US possession. A US base established outside US jurisdiction is a possession.
I appreciate your comments.
Your “requirement” that a child be born on US Soil is incorrect. While being born on US soil does grant US citizenship, it is not a requirement.
I am very aware of the difference between Natural Born (citizen by birth) and Naturalization (process of granting citizenship). There is only ONE time Congress has used the term “natural born citizen”. It is in the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1st Congress 2nd Session).
In specific, it says”
“... And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:...”
That law was signed by none other than George Washington and shows that the founding fathers did not require a US Citizen be born on US soil, US possession or US Jurisdiction. A child born from a US Citizen (regardless of where) at the time of there birth confers citizenship at birth if the parent(s) meet the requirements established by the laws of the US at the time of that birth.
Therefore, your assertion that the founding fathers used English Common Laws is demonstratively incorrect.