“Vattel pointed out that England chooses to naturalize at birth the children of aliens.”
That was Vattel’s term for it, writing from a continental perspective. That is NOT how the English saw it. They were not naturalizing the baby, but the baby had a natural obligation to the king.
Vattel isn’t God. He screwed things up. He had not gone to England, and had no particular expertise on English law.
As the US Supreme Court put it:
“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King...
...It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
I don’t know how the US Supreme Court could have made it any clearer.
The Founders obviously rejected British citizenship concepts along with their British citizenship. That does not give you an excuse to post lies about Vattel. Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
You continually try to twist Wong Kim Ark on every thread.
From the link above:
"that he was a native-born citizen of the United States"
[note it says NATIVE BORN not natural born]
"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."
[NOTE: it says 'just as much a citizen'...it does NOT the citizen in question IS natural born]
-----
BTW-
1} You can't petition a court as one thing and have it declare you something else,
and
2} Deriding a man like Vattel (whose brilliance had even the Founders in awe) by using such haphazard evidence makes you look rather foolish.