All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
It may be widely accepted among today's ignorami, but it certainly wasn't at the time of the founding.
"George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 - October 7, 1792) a delegate from Virginia to the U.S. Constitutional Convention, who is called the "Father of the Bill of Rights," had said during the debate on ratification in Virginia that the Constitution was not founded on English common law through a single example on treaties, bluntly stated that English common law was not the common law of the United States."
[Quote]
It is widely accepted that the constitution is written in the language of the English Common law and the English Common law is clear as to what a Natural Born Citizen is and isn’t.
All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)
[Unquote]
Swayne’s commentary was in the case law of a Circuit Court, and not the U.S. Supreme Court. The dissenting opinion of Justice Fuller in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
It must a;lso be noted Swayne’s opinion is impeached by a number of other sources, including Scott v. Sandford (1856), which denied the possibility of children born in the United States with alien parents acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth or by birth in the United States. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provided citizenship at birth in the United States, but that citizenship is naturalized citizenship by the legislation of the Constitution and statutes. The Constitution, amendments to the Constitution, and the derivative statutes have no power to make any person an actual natural born person as defined by natural law.
Thanks for the citation. I think applying a little logic and reason to the question will bring a great deal of understanding.
There’s no question that a person who’s born in the country to two citizen parents of that country, will naturally possess an undiluted allegiance to the country of their birth.
Obviously, it’s possible for such a person to develop an alloyed affinity (or disloyalty), but the probability is stronger that they won’t.
It’s plain to see that the Framers were attempting to provide the best insurance possible that our presidents would possess a natural, inborn loyalty to this country, and no other.