True, but only in regard to really one thing.
The difference between "subject" and "citizen."
As for your making the claim that England adhered to perpetual allegiance and we did not, that's only true to a certain point. In the early United States, we were quite happy to reject the doctrine that citizens of other countries were not permanently bound to the countries of their birth. We were happy enough to welcome them here.
We were not nearly so happy to reject the doctrine that citizens of the UNITED STATES were not permanently bound to the country of THEIR birth.
It was a rather hypocritical position. But it's one we tended to hold in the early days.
But even if we granted, for the sake of argument, that we rejected the doctrine of perpetual allegiance (and EVENTUALLY, we did).
It is still FALLACIOUS to argue that we therefore rejected all aspects of the citizenship rules handed down to us through English, colonial, and American common law.
In order to make that argument, you need to actually SHOW that we rejected the basic citizenship rule.
And you CAN'T. Because we DIDN'T.
In fact, here's a very important early legal authority, who was appointed by GEORGE WASHINGTON to be United States District Attorney for the entire State of Pennsylvania. He was a delegate to Pennsylvania's Constitutional Assembly. He was offered the post of United States Attorney General by GEORGE WASHINGTON - more than once - but always turned the post down.
He was a friend of Founder BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and used to meet with other important early leaders at Franklin's house to discuss politics, law, etc.
Although he wasn't a delegate, he was present in Philadelphia while the Constitutional Convention was taking place.
He was quoted approvingly as an early American legal authority by the United States Supreme Court.
He was the first president of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, and for 40 years a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania.
He wrote an authoritative guide to the Constitution of the United States, which was used as a textbook on the Constitution in many of our universities.
In fact, it was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860.
But you will spit on him and disrespect him, as you spit upon and disrespect any and all from the Founding Generation who disagree with your Constitution-twisting BS.
Here's what William Rawle had to say:
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
Don't claim to be a friend of the Founders. You and your ilk most certainly aren't.