Yes. LOCAL allegiance. The temporary and transitory kind that has nothing to do with naturalized or natural born citizenship...as Wilson, Tucker and Blackstone ALL confirm.
"or he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject[.]"
As I've already pointed out, this is NOT Coke's conclusion, but the beginning of that section's discussion. Please provide the source Coke was quoting from.
----
Robert Calvin's parents were alines as to England. Yet the court ruled Calvin was nonetheless able to inherit property in England, with Coke reasoning Calvin was a natural born citizen.
Another half-truth on your part.
Yes, his parents were alien to England, but the PERTINENT part you must have forgotten to mention was that they were subjects of Scotland...and when Calvin's case was being decided, the 'sovereign' of both England and Scotland were one and the same.
It was kind of a " albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other." kind of thing.
----
Coke didn't state a rule like you just write. Neither did Wilson.
Yes they did. Your assertion of negativity doesn't create facts.
BTW - So did Vattel-
Law of Nations/ Emmerich de Vattel / Book I / CHAP. XIX.
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
(snip)
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
This is a preposterous statement given the "momentary and incertain" phrase is paired in the same sentence with the conclusion the offspring would be a natural born subject:
"Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is strong enough to make a natural subject; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject[.]"
As I've already pointed out, this is NOT Coke's conclusion
It's part of Coke's reasoning for why Robert Calvin, though born of parents who were aliens as to England at the time of his birth, nonetheless was not himself an alien as to England so he could therefore inherit the disputed property. Calvin is like that Frenchman, born of parents who were aliens as to England though owing an allegiance to James at the time of Robert's birth. This comparison is the reason why Coke writes the excerpt above. That's why it's relevant to the case.
when Calvin's case was being decided, the 'sovereign' of both England and Scotland were one and the same.
Yes, though the kingdoms were not then united (and would not be united for another one hundred years). That was the principal argument of the defendants.
And those who were born in Scotland before the ascension of James VI could not inherit property in England even though at the time of inheritance James VI had become James I of England and thus everyone in Scotland and England owed allegiance to the same King. You need to understand why they couldn't, but Calvin could to understand this case.
Your assertion of negativity doesn't create facts.
Neither does your positive assertion regarding those same persons in the absence of support. Vattel is the only one you've listed who supports the view your proposing. And Vattel acknowledges England followed a different rule. Your own source contradicts your attempt to paint Coke as some Vattel-like jus sanguinis guy. Vattel is the only one you've listed who supports you.
You know, Sen. Lyman Trumbull was able to eventually learn something, but I doubt this current obot is as smart as Senator Trumbull.
“There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States and who owe allegiance to it.I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, ‘That all persons born in the United State and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens;’
But upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer”.
Exactly right Senator. You don't have a right to make citizens out of the Children of temporarily resident foreigners.
And why on Earth would you want to?