"Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth." "Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject." - Dicey Conflict of Laws.
The only exceptions are that the parents are enemy invaders or diplomats.
I'm done for tonight.
Thank you for your service. I'm unfamiliar with Dicey, and I don't know if subjectship equates to citizenship. If so, doesn't the Dicey definition sound similar to our 14th Amendment? If so, one must then define the difference between citizen and natural born citizen as used in our Constitution.
I am glad you posted this son - I think you have potential ...
[This is gonna be long ...]
HOWEVER:
From "A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws" [Dicey, Page 164]:
Rule 20:
(1) "British subject" means any person who owes permanent allegiance [See Note 1] to the Crown.
(2) "Natural-born British subject" means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.
(3) "Naturalized British subject" means any British subject who is not a natural-born British subject.
Note 1: "Permanent" allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes " temporary " allegiance to the Crown.
So, in order to be a British Subject - there MUST be permanent allegiance, and NOT that of an alien. And a Natural Born Subject is a British Subject [owing a permanent allegiance to the sovreign] at the moment of his birth [which generally means having been born within the realm].
Now, the seminal citizenship [subjectship] case in British Law is Calvin's Case 1608 [7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377]. It states:
... 3. There be regularly (unless it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the King. 2. That the place of his birth be within the King's dominion. And, 3. The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a King of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the King of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because, though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitai, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are subjects to the King of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the King's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject ..."
Actual obedience meant permanent allegiance [ligeance] and that had to be from the child' parents.
Additionally, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England [which is a commentary on English Law - and NOT the law itself] stated the following:
" ... The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such ...
Notice that Blackstone qualifies their status by the phrase "generally speaking". He does not state it to specifically exclude the children of aliens who are claimed as natural born subjects of their fathers' country, but he STRONGLY implies it further on by also stating that no subject can owe two [2] allegiances to two [2] different sovreigns.
Now, the British Nationality Act of 1730 [which governed British citizenship at the time of the American Revolution] stated:
" ... the Children of all natural-born Subjects, born out of the Ligeance of her said late Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, should be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born ... May it please your most Excellent Majesty that it may be declared and enacted, and be it declared and enacted by the Children of natural-born Subjects born out of the Allegiance of the Crown, declared to be natural-born ... That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever ..."
Furthermore, there is John Jay's letter to George Washington in 1787, stating:
"... Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen ..."
There was not much American Statute Law in place at the time. When the separation from Great Britain was complete, ALMOST ALL of the law used in the United States was British Law [except that which we disagreed with]. The lawyers amongst the Founding Fathers were trained either at English Law Schools, American Universities [which taught English Law], or studied under established attornies [who, themselves, were trained at English or American Universities that taught English Law].
Given Calvin's Case, the British Nationality Act of 1730, Blackstone, Dicey, and the Founding Fathers' fear of foreigners becoming President - the only possible definition of natural born citizen is the following:
A "natural born citizen" is born within the dominion of the United States and owes a single, permanent allegiance to the United States at the moment of his birth. That single, permanent allegiance is conveyed through the parents and the only way the parents could convey such allegince was for them to be citizens [natural born or naturalized].
The British Nationality Act of 1730 conferred natural born subject status upon children born outside of the British dominion to fathers who were themselves natural born subjects. And birth on US soil conferred automatic US citizenship to such a child. Due to the dual allegiance - there IS NO WAY the Founding Fathers would consider Obama to be natural born. Citizen, yes ... natural born, no.
Given this, in tota, there is only one reasonable definition that the Founding Fathers intended and that is:
A natural born citizen is born within the dominion of the United States AND with a single allegiance to the United States, of two [2] citizen parents, who each owe a single allegiance to the United States.