[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Some States made citizenship conditional on either parent in terms of their citizenship, such as Kentucky: [E]very child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State. One common law found in a number of States that defined those born as citizens read, All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.
Until the 14th Amendment was passed in reaction to what the law was found to be in Dred Scott there was no national law of citizenship.
When we aak the question:
Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term natural-born subject?
Here is the accurate answer:
It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of natural-born subject. The British doctrine allowed for double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.
Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a member of the body politic. King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance. House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be true and faithful alone to our government.
Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demanded allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a perpetual allegiance upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. Englands perpetual allegiance due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind natural-born subject in June of 1812.
Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.
It remains the case that the national law at the time of the 14th Acmendment, before it was passed, did not adopt the approach set out by Coke in Calvin's case to solve the problem of the Stuart succession to the crown of England in the person of James I and in fact in the period before its passge the law as declared was that of Taney's opinion in Dred Scott, however unattractive that may have been.
You know Perkins Coie briefs in a manner very similar to your manner of posting, with great misrepresentation and inaccuracy. Let's face it you and your master rely upon intimidation of the judiciary and having your state run media and captive "intellectuals" rely upon ridicule rather than history and the actual law.