[Mr Rogers]

Hmmm...citing “A digest of select British statutes by Samuel Roberts” to say that the US follows Vattel instead of following the English rule...although no court agrees, not then and not now.

Citing a book that is obviously wrong on the law isn’t very useful. It merely proves that Sam Roberts didn’t pay much attention to the law as used in the courts and Congress.

Lots of property cases involved who was or was not a citizen, and the book you cite completely blew it on the law as it was practiced then and now.

[Rides3]

Hmmm...citing “A digest of select British statutes by Samuel Roberts” to say that the US follows Vattel instead of following the English rule...although no court agrees, not then and not now.

You left this out of the title of the book:

"according to the report of the judges of the Supreme Court made to the legislature, appear to be in force"

Furthermore, there is actual historical evidence that those born in the U.S. to non-citizen fathers were not born U.S. citizens:

Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a non-citizen father.

Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was a non-citizen at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Source: A Digest of the International Law of the United States

[Rides3]

Both of those determinations were made by U.S. Secretaries of State AFTER the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hmmm...citing “A digest of select British statutes by Samuel Roberts” to say that the US follows Vattel instead of following the English rule...although no court agrees, not then and not now.

Stop lying. Plenty of courts agreed up until Wong Kim Ark. Beyond that, it is incredibly stupid to give any credence to what modern courts say about anything. I simply have no respect for the opinions of any of these modern courts.

You are still suffering from that delusion that something is correct merely because a court says so. The courts are wrong on Kelo, Wickard, Roe, and Lawrence. They are so far wrong on eligibility too.

Citing a book that is obviously wrong on the law isn’t very useful. It merely proves that Sam Roberts didn’t pay much attention to the law as used in the courts and Congress.

The book isn't wrong. It is subsequent legal opinions which were wrong. Three of those judges that helped write that book were Constitutional conventions Delegates and/or Pennsylvania state convention ratification delegates. They KNOW what the Constitutional convention intended. Rawle did not.

The book was also reprinted again in 1847. If the book were wrong, you would think someone would have pointed this out in the intervening 30 years.

According to the Second Edition preface, the book was widely read and highly relied upon. (Read the Whole Preface to get an idea.)

Link: