The Gestation of Birthright Citizenship, 1868-1898: States’ Rights, The Law of Nations, and Mutual Consent

It is open to speculation, but then or now, I rather doubt many Scots are seriously concerned about owning land in England. They would much rather be having a pint at their local and loudly singing Flower of Scotland.
You shrug off this point too cavalierly. The Scots are a ridiculously proud people, and they have long taken offense at English perceptions of them as inferior.

I lived in Scotland for several years and drank pints at the local and heard the place come to life whenever Flower of Scotland was sung.

But I doubt that you will find too many true Scots who have an overwhelming desire to live in England.

The English would be able to own land in Scotland, but no Scot could own land in England?

You said that. I didn't even hint at that. If you know what the law of Scotland said at the time, do tell.

"In the True Law, James maintains that the king owns his realm as a feudal lord owns his fief, because kings arose "before any estates or ranks of men, before any parliaments were holden, or laws made, and by them was the land distributed, which at first was wholly theirs."

England and Scotland were separate countries until Great Britain was formed in 1707. Calvin's Case was in 1608. Today, Queen Elizabeth is the queen of Canada and its head of state, but Canada is a separate country.

The land of England then restricted ownership to English subjects. The law of Scotland was a different law in a different system of law and said whatever it said, its content being irrelevant to Calvin's Case. Relevant was that the king, in either case, was the same James (I or VI) and it is good to be king. However, the people of the United States decided it was even better for the people to be the sovereigns.

I say James VI was very much aware of what would happen if the decision went the other way, and he exerted every bit of pressure he could bring to bear to make certain the decision came out in his favor.

You are free to say that, but whether right or wrong, it is irrelevant to whether one is, or is not, born a citizen in the United States. That depends entirely and solely upon United States law.

"A History of Private Law in Scotland: Introduction and Property," edited by Kenneth G. C. Reid, Reinhard Zimmermann, at page 78:

"By 1608, James's full project for a more perfect union was essentially dead."

For a more complete coverage of Calvin's Case, see:

A complete Collection of State Trials, Vol II (1806) 1 James I to 3 Charles I 1603-1627

At page 559-560:

85. The Case of the POSTNATI. or of the Union of the Realm of Scotland with England; Trin. 6 James I. A.D. 1608*

From the meeting of the crowns of England and Scotland in the person of the first James, grew one of the most important questions of state, which ever engaged the attention of either country. It was, whether the POSTNATI, or those born in Scotland after the accession of James to the crown of England, were in the latter country to be deemed aliens or natives. As to the Ante-nati, all seem to have agreed, that they remained aliens. But there was a great difference of opinion about the condition of the Postnati. The king, anxious for every thing which tended to consolidate the island into one kingdom, was eager to ave it declared as law, that the Union of the crowns effected a mutual naturalization of the Postnati in the two countries. His wishes were made known by the Proclamation, In which he assumed the stile of King of Great Britain, with an exception in favor of legal process, instruments, and assurances; and words were introduced, importing that his accession to the crown of England had made a great change in the law of Naturalization. Rym. Foed. v. 16. p. 603, 2 Bac. last 4to. ed. 114. The Commissioners, appointed by the respective Parliaments of the two countries to treat for an union of government of laws, folowed the king in this language; for they resolved to propound to both parliaments a declaration of the law to that effect. But when the proposition was made, the English house of commons were §found averse to it, notwithstanding the countenancegiven by the lords, and an opinion given to them by ten out of eleven judges. It was therefore determined to settles the point out of parliament in the regular way, by resorting to the English courts of justice. For this purpose, two suits were instituted in the name of Robert Calvin, a Postnatus of Scotland and an infant; one in the King's-bench for the freehold of some land; and the other in Chancery for detainer of writings concerning the title to the freehold of the same estate: and in both it was pleaded by the defendants in abatement, that the plaintiff was an alien born in Scotlad at a time which by the pleading appeared to be since the king's accession to the crown of England. A demurrer to this plea necessarily brought forward the intended question about the Postnati; for if Calvin was an alien, he could not maintain either suit,
__________
* Some of the law laid down in the following case was discussed in the case of Hall v. Campbell, infra, A. D. 1774. It was much reied on by lord Mansfield in his argument (on a point on which the judgment of the court did not turn) in that case, and is very perspicuously stated and carefully considered by Mr. Baron Maseres in his most learned and elaborate analysis and examination of the whole of lord Mansfield's argument of that occasion. See "The Canadian Freeholder," Dialogue 2d. As to the topics of Allegiance agitated in the case of the Postnati, see more in the duke of Hamilton's case, infra, A. D. 1648. See also East's Pl. Cr. ch. ii. §3, 41. and the case and authorities cited.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At page 561-562:
aliens being incapable to sue for the freehold of land. These Causes were adjourned into the Exchequer Chamber, in order to have the solemn opinion of all the judges; and there the business ended with a resolution in favour of the Postnati, in which the lord-chancellor and 12 judges out of 14 concurred. However, very eminent lawyers appear to have entertained a different opinion of the point. In parliament, dodridge, Hyde, Brock, Crew, Moore, and Hedley all spoke against the Postnati. What te names of the two dissenting judges were, is not mentioned; except that lord Ellesmere alludes to both having the Christian name of Thomas, the only judges of which name at the time were lord chief justice Fleming, Mr. justice Walmesley, and Mr. justice Foster. It is suspected too. that the known inclinations and wishes of the king had no little influence in the decision. But be this as it may, we are not apprized that the main point of the case has been ever disturbed by any subsequent judicial opinion.
The only regular Report we have of this case is by lord Coke. But there is a great deal of matter relative to it in other books. Lord-chancellor Elesmere published his Argument separately. Mr. sergeant Moore gives the history of the previous passages in parliament on the great point of law, for deciding wich the case was afterwards made. In lord Bacon's Works, there are both his Speeches in parliament on the subject, and his Argument before the Judges in the Exchequer-chamber, with some other pieces. 152. 159. 170. 2 Bac. 4to. ed. 173. 185. 514. Nathaniel Bacon, in his Book on Government, examines and controverts the principles, on which lord Coke reports the case to have been decided. Bac. on Gov. part 2. page 76. The Parliamentary History relates the proceedings in the English parliament in the 2 and 4 Jam. on the proposal for an Union between England and Scotland, and gives a short view of some arguments in the commons of the point of Naturalization.* Archbiship Spotswood's History of the church and State of Scotland also contains many particulars of the proceedings towards an Union. Spotsw. 479. See further Arthur Wilson's History of James the 1st, 27, 34. Sanderson's Life of the same king, 318. 358. 2 Winwood's Memorials of State 20, 32 to 38.
We shall now lay before the reader, 1. Mr. sergeant Moore's account of the Proceedings in Parliament about the Postnati. 2. Lord Bacon's Speech as counsel for Calvin, in the Exchequer-Chamber. 3. Lord Coke's Report of Calvin's Case. 4. Lord-chancellor Ellesmere's Speech in the Exchequer-Chamber, as published by himself.
__________
* See 1 Cobb. Parl. Hist. 1018, 1027, 1069, 1071.

At 562: Case of the Union of the Realm of Scotland with England.

At 575: Speech of Lord Bacon, as Counsel for Calvin, in the Exchequer Chamber

At 607: Lord Coke's Report of Calvin's Case. From the 7th part of his Reports.

At: 659: Lord Chancellor Ellesmere's Speech in the Exchequer Chamber, in the Case of the Postnati.

At 695: Lord Chancellor Ellesmere's Speech Conclusion: [strange spelling in original]

THE CONCLUSION
Thus I have delivered my concurrence in opinion with my lordes the judges, and the reasons that induce and satisfie my conscience, that Ro. Caluine, and all the Postnati in Scotland, are in reason and by the common law of England, naturall-borne subjects within the allegeance of the king of England; and inhabled to purchase and haue free-hould and inheritance in lands of England; and to bring reall actions for the same in England.
For if they have not this benefit by this blessed and happie vnion, then they are in no better case in England, than the King of Spaines subjects borne in Spaine, &c. And so by this vnion, they have gotten nothing: what they haue lost justice Yeluerton did well note.
And therefore I must give judgement in the Chancerie, that the defendants there ought to make direct answer to Ro. Caluines bill for the lands and euidences for which he compaines.
T. ELLESMERE, Canc.

Good example. Roe v. Wade is an absolute garbage decision based on nothing more than emotions from a court that had been stacked with Liberal @$$holes who "interpreted" the law to mean whatever they wished it to mean. (Mostly thanks to the 14th amendment.)
That makes zero difference to the state of the law.

Actually, it is your rant that makes no difference to the state of the law, and you know that as fact. The fact is that you can observe that in your state, as in every other state, abortion is legal. No state has the lawful power to enact a law outlawing abortion. That is the law. I disagree with Roe, as I do not see a right of privacy, broad enough to cover abortion, emanating from the penumbras. But I do not make believe that a Supreme Court opinion makes no difference to the state of the law. There is one opinion that defines the law and is not mine or yours, it is theirs.

None of this makes any difference to citizenship determinations in the United States.
I haven't got to the point of arguing about that yet. First we must understand the origins of how English common law came to be different from the Roman law that preceded it, and the Jus Sanguinus norms that existed on the Continent.

This is absolutely false. The only thing we must understand and acknowledge is the incontrovertible truth that the Constitution is the law of the land, and it supersedes and strikes down any law that conflicts with any of its provisions. If you can find anything which conflicts with any part of the 14th Amendment, that law is null and void in the United States.

All common law falls to written statute law.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Everyone born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is born a citizen of the United States. A natural born American citizen, to use the emphasis of John Jay, is a person who acquired American citizenship at birth.

https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay/ldpd:68356. Jay to Washington, 25 July 1787, handwritten.

The Constitution does not say a mumbling word about parents, or their citizenship. The child in the United States of two illegal aliens, both in a detention center awaiting deportation, is born a United States citizen. A child of foreign parentage born on U.S. soil, acquires U.S. citizenship at birth unless he or she is the child of a visiting accredited diplomat or of visiting royalty, and thereby enjoys immunity from United States laws. The prevailing precedent is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

In Wong Kim Ark the dissenting opinion of Fuller C.J., joined by Harlan J., at 169 U.S. 706, said in reference to the majority opinion of the Court,

The English common-law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that “every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.” Cockb. Nat. 7.

That accurately describes the state of English law that was in effect in the colonies when the Declaration of Independence was issued.

Every one of the original thirteen states adopted so much of the English common law as was not inconsistent with the Constitution. They did so explicitly, either in their written state constitution, or in their written state statute law.

As was stated by the majority in the Opinion of the Court at 169 U.S. 702,

The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,” contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

This thread article erroneously delves into McKay v. Campbell as something relevant.

In McKay v. Campbell, the U.S. District Court for the district of Oregon considered whether the plaintiff could be deemed a U.S. citizen, and should be allowed to vote. The defendants argued that McKay was British, since he was the child of a British subject, and had been born at a point when Britain and the United States had agreed-for the moment-to occupy the territory jointly. Judge Deady, evaluating the case, narrowed the issue to that of birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which he interpreted in terms of the common law; as he asserted, eliding jurisdiction and allegiance, “The case turns upon the single point – was the plaintiff born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – under its allegiance? Citing Calvin’s Case, the Judge recalled Lord Coke’s statement that “To make a subject born, the parents must be under the actual obedience of the king, and the place of birth be within the king’s obedience, as well as within his dominion. According to Judge Deady’s reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is “nothing more than declaratory of the rule of the common law,” and, therefore, the citizen’s allegiance at birth must be evaluated. In McKay’s case, “The child, although born on soil … subsequently acknowledged to be the territory of the United States, was not at the time of its birth under the power or protection of the United States, and without these the mere place of birth cannot impose allegiance or confer citizenship.

In McKay, the person was born before the 14th Amendment existed, in a shared territory under a treaty agreement that British issue would be British by birth and American issue would be American by birth. The soil would be considered British for one and American for the other.

McKay v. Campbell, 16 Fed. Cas 161, 2 Sawr. 118, District Court, district of Oregon, 7 Nov. 1871.

The headnotes at 16 Fed. Cas. 161 provide a clear synopsis.

CITIZENSHIP — COMMON LAW - PERSONS BORN IN OREGON, BETWEEN 1818 AND 1846 — INDIAN TRIBES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITIES — XIV AMENDMENT — ISSUE OF A BRITISH SUBJECT AND CHINOOK WOMAN
1. By the common law a child born within the allegiance of the United States is born a subject thereof without reference to the political status or condition of its parents.
[Cited in Ex parte Chin King, 85 Fed. 855.]
[Cited in New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 54 Conn. 41, 5 Atl. 362.]
2. By article 3 of the convention of October 20, 1818 (8 Stat. 249), between the United States and Great Britain. it was agreed that the Oregon territory should "be free and open to the vessels, citizens and subjects of the two powers;" which convention was continued in force until the convention of June 15, 1846 (9 Stat. 869); Held, that during the period of such joint occupation, the country, as to British subjects therein, was British soil, and subject to the jurisdiction of the king of Great Btitain, but as to citizens of the United States, it was American soil and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and that a child born in such territory in 1823 of British subjects, was born in the allegiance of the king of Great Britain, and not that of the United States.
[Cited in Town v. De Haven, Case No. 14,113.]
[Cited in State v. Boyd 31 Neb. 725, 48 N. W. 739, and 51 N. W. 002.]
3. The Indian tribes within the territory of the United States are independent political communities, and a child of a member thereof, though born within the limits of the United States, is not a citizen thereof, because not born subject to its jurisdiction.
[Cited in U. S. v. Osborn, 2 Fed. 60; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S.109, 5 Sup. Ct. 49.]
4. The fourteenth article of the constitution of the United States, commonly called the fourteenth amendment, is only declaratory of the common law rule on the subject of citizenship by birth, and therefore does not include Indians or others not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
5. In 1823, and prior thereto, the Chinook Indians were an independent political community, inhabiting the Oregon territory, at and near the mouth of the Columbia river; and in said year the plaintiff was born at Fort George (now Astoria) of a father who was an alien and a British subject, and a mother who was a Chinook Indian; Held. that the plaintiff is either to be deemed to follow the condition of his father, and considered a British subject, or that of his mother, and considered a Chinook Indian, but that in either case he was not born a citizen of the United States.
6. At an election held on June 6, 1870, at East Dalles precinct under the laws of Oregon, the plaintiff offered to vote and his right to do so being challenged, offered to take the prescribed oath as to his qunlifications as an elector, but the defendant then being one of the judges of election at said polls, refused to administer said oath to the plaintiff, as he was required to do by the law of the state on the ground that plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States, but a half breed Indian; Held, that whether such refusal was wrongful or not, under the state law, the plaintiff not being a citizen of the United States, is not within the purview or protection of article 15 of the constitution of the United States, or the act of congress, entitled "An act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several states of the Union and for other purposes" (16 Stat. 740), and therefore cannot maintain an action against the defendant on account of such refusal, to recover the penalty given by section 2 of said act of congress.

McKay could be considered as a British citizen born on British soil, or as a member of an Indian tribe, in either case not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This strange case, relying upon the duality of soil in 1823 pursuant to a treaty regarding the territory of Oregon, is irrelevant to any current discussion of citizenship law in the United States.

McKay, 16 Fed. at 164, Opinion of the Court,

When, in 1818, the two governments entered into the treaty of "joint occupation," as it has been aptly called, they thereby agreed that this then unsettled and unknown country, might be occupied by the people of both nations—that it should "be free and open" "to the vessels, citizens, and subjects of the two powers"—without either of them losing their nationality, changing their allegiance, or passing beyond the jurisdiction and protection of their separate governments. As to the British subject and his children born here, the country was for the time being British soil, while to the American citizen and his offspring it was in the same sense American soil. Neither government was entitled to exercise any authority over the citizens or subjects of the other, or to assert the power and rights of a sovereign over them, or their effects, within this particular territory. If, prior to 1846, the plaintiff had died intestate and without heirs, leaving a large amount of personal property in the territory, there is no doubt but that the British crown would have claimed the escheat without a word of objection from the government of the United States.
When it is said that by the common law a person born of alien parents, and in the allegiance of the United States, is born a citizen thereof, it is necessarily understood that he is not only born on soil over which the United States has or claims jurisdiction, but that such jurisdiction for the time being is both actual and exclusive, so that such person is in fact born within the power, protection and obedience of the United States. Generally speaking, the various places in the world are claimed, or admitted for the time being, to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of some particular sovereign or government, so that a person born at anyone of them is without doubt born in the allegiance of such particular sovereign or government. But that is not this case—which in this respect is a singular one. Its parallel has not been found in the books. The country of the plaintiff's birth was, at the time thereof, jointly occupied by the citizens and subjects of two governments in pursuance of a treaty to that effect. Under the Circumstances, neither government can be considered as exercising general exclnsive jurisdiction over the country and its inhabitants. It seems to me, that the only practical and just solution of the problem, is to consider the country for the time being, only to have been in the exclusive jurisdiction of each government as to its own citizens or subjects; and this is the view which congress appears to have taken of the matter in 1846, when, in the preamble to the resolution of April 27, it deprecated "the evil consequences of the divided allegiance of its American and British population," and "the confusion and conflict of national jurisdiction" growing out of the continued joint occupation of the country.

McKay 16 Fed. at 165, Opinion of the Court

Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution, commonly called the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, have been cited by counsel for plaintiff as bearing upon this question of the plaintiff's citizenship and consequent right to vote. The latter simply provides that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But as to who are "citizens of the United States" this article is silent—it being understood that that matter had been regulated or defined by article 14, § 1, which enacts: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the state wherein they reside." Eliminate the words having reference to naturalized citizens, and the clause reads: "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens," etc. This is nothing more than declaratory at the rule of the common law as above stated. To be a citizen of the United States by reason of his birth, a person must not only be born within its territorial limits, but he must also be born subject to its jurisdiction—that is, in its power and obedience.

Kamala Harris, born in California, and subject to its laws, is a citizen of the United States.

Congress cannot legislate the matter away. Any change will require another amendment. Perhaps the citizenship clause should be amended, but for now, it is what it is. The English common law rule was placed in the Constitution and deliberately placed beyond the authority of the Legislature.

It is the words that were ratified that are the law of the land. This is so whether thhey are a correct or incorrect interpretation of the common law rule. The words ratified are the law of the land, regardless of whether they comport with the alleged beliefs of one or more Framers, real or imaginary. The words are what was ratified.

It is fine to disagree with a law, or with a court opinion. That does change the law or the legal opinion. It is pointless to cite everything but U.S. law to claim what is the state of U.S. law.

But I doubt that you will find too many true Scots who have an overwhelming desire to live in England.

You are substituting your point for my own. Again I will say that my point is not that Scots would want to live in England, it's that they would greatly resent being told they have no right to own land in England because they aren't Subjects of England even though they are subjects of her King.

It smells like second class citizenship er ... I mean subjectship.

You said that. I didn't even hint at that. If you know what the law of Scotland said at the time, do tell.

Why would the law of Scotland have any effect on the ownership of English lands?

England and Scotland were separate countries until Great Britain was formed in 1707. Calvin's Case was in 1608.

Without Calvin's case coming out as it did, I very greatly doubt there would have been a Great Britain in 1707.

You are free to say that, but whether right or wrong, it is irrelevant to whether one is, or is not, born a citizen in the United States.

It is relevant to how such things came to be the way they are. Clearly, had Calvin's case gone the other way, Jus Soli would not be the established idea that it is now.

"From the meeting of the crowns of England and Scotland in the person of the first James, grew one of the most important questions of state, which ever engaged the attention of either country."

Exactly my point. This case was a threat to the Union, and that is exactly why it had to be decided the way it was.

Actually, it is your rant that makes no difference to the state of the law,

You have quoted something you said and attributed it to me. I said "It makes zero difference to the truth." You said "That makes zero difference to the state of the law. "

The fact is that you can observe that in your state, as in every other state, abortion is legal.

I observe they created a fake law and that their fake law is enforced because they hold power. Again, I draw a distinction between actual truth and compelled "truth." They are now trying to compel us to accept men in dresses as "women."

This is absolutely false. The only thing we must understand and acknowledge is the incontrovertible truth that the Constitution is the law of the land, and it supersedes and strikes down any law that conflicts with any of its provisions.

You have a term of art that is in dispute as to it's meaning. Yes, the Constitution is supreme, but that does not address the point in contention. What does this term mean, and where did it come from?

Clearly the "common law" interpretation came from Calvin's case.

All common law falls to written statute law.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

I can see you are chomping at the bit to get straight into American law, but I think you are starting way late in the process. But to momentarily go along with this effort to Jump up to 1868 I will say that I regard an amendment as higher than just statute law, but there are three issues with relying on that amendment.

1. What does that verbiage mean?
2. Was that amendment legitimate?
3. Does this amendment affect the meaning of "natural born citizen"?

We can have a massively long argument on just those three aspects alone. (Assuming you take the contrary view to myself.)

Everyone born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is born a citizen of the United States.

I guess you want to start with that one.

Okay, what did the framers of the 14th intend when they inserted that verbiage into the 14th amendment? What do they mean by "subject to its jurisdiction?"

I personally think starting the debate by referencing events in 1868 is wrong headed. Natural born citizens existed before 1868, and clearly the founders meant those types of citizens, not those created by some subsequent statute, which sounds to me like the very opposite of a "natural" citizen.

The founders were really big on this stuff called "Natural law". It was quite the rage in the 18th century. They believed that there were a set of natural laws derived from God and which could be discerned by intelligent and objective men.

It is this philosophy of "natural law" that allowed the founders to justify breaking from England, because it certainly wasn't permitted under the principles of English common law. It was absolutely forbidden.

So if you don't' mind, I would rather skip over a discussion of the meaning of a dubiously created man made law from 1868 and go back to the origins of the founders intent in 1776.

Have you read Lex Rex? It gives a much better grasp of the thinking of that era.

Can you tell me where the Declaration of Independence was written?

And the US Constitution?

I regard the location as significant for this discussion.

Again I will say that my point is not that Scots would want to live in England, it's that they would greatly resent being told they have no right to own land in England because they aren't Subjects of England even though they are subjects of her King.

This had no applicability to the common Scot at the time. It only pertained the landed gentry who had been bestowed ownership of English land by the King of England. Scots were subjects of the King of Scotland, not the King of England. One person can be king of multiple kingdoms, each with its own laws, and he rules each separately by the laws of each. English and Scottish owed allegiance to the same person, but not the same king, as royal things go. James was James I or James VI, depending on who was counting.

It had nothing whatever to do with Scottish law.

Why would the law of Scotland have any effect on the ownership of English lands?

It wouldn't, just as the law of England would not have any effect on the English ownership of Scottish lands. The effect of two kings and one person with a crown affects things royal such as bequeathing royal patents for his land.

Technically, the owner of all the public land in Canada is the Queen of Canada.

It has not a single damn thing to do with the right of the United States to define its citizenship in any way it finds to its liking.

It is relevant to how such things came to be the way they are. Clearly, had Calvin's case gone the other way, Jus Soli would not be the established idea that it is now.

I have already dated the law of jus soli and jus sanguinis back to the 13th century.

"Dating as far back as the thirteenth century, the ‘subject’, as position and identity, was legally defined through a complicated mixture of both ‘soil and blood’." See my #37.

The previously cited De Natis Ultra Mare (Status of Children Born Abroad Act of 1350) 25 Edw III. Stat. 2. was from the 25th year of the reign of King Edward III. Apparently, it remains if effect in England. That is jus sanguinis in England in 1350.

I say again, and again, United States citizenship, as with the citizenship of every nation on earth, is a domestic determination relying solely on its own domestic laws. People running around before there was a United States did not decide what law would be used in the United States.

You are not expressing the law. You are expressing a personal disagreement with the actual law, or the results of the actual law.

You may make believe your personal opinion overrides Supreme Court opinions, but it doesn't. The law is neither good nor bad. It is not a statement of waht is moral nor immoral. It is whatever it says it is, as interpreted by the courts. The law can be as dumb as a post and it is still the law. The Fugitive Slave Clause was once the law of the land. It was never a statement of morality, but it was undeniably constitutional law.

At the time the 14th Amendment was being adopted, Chinese persons were ineligible for naturalization. They had no pathway to citizenship. The exclusion act was not repealed until 1943. And yet, it is an incontrovertible fact that Chinese children, born in the United States of foreign parents ineligible to be naturalized, were natural born United States citizens. In debate, this was certified as the deliberate intent of the proposed Amendment, and later the U.S. Supreme Court held this was the effect of the adopted Amendment.

You must appeal to old foreign laws, or claims of laws, because you know absolutely that United States law is contrary to your desired result. Birther arguments, presented to courts, ended with predictable results.

In Kerchner et al v. Obama et al, D.N.J. 1:09-CV-00253, the case was dismissed by the District Court and Complainant appealed to the 3rd Circuit court. The 3rd Circuit court affirmed the lower court and in judgment assessed costs against Appellant. The U.S. Supreme court denied cert.

On page 7 of 3rd Circuit precedential opinion, [emphasis added]

Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed.

And, in the Judgment, the Court assessed costs against Appellants.

JUDGMENT
This cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on June 29, 2010.
On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered October 21, 2009, be and the same is hereby affirmed. Costs taxed against Appellants. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

You have a term of art that is in dispute as to it's meaning. Yes, the Constitution is supreme, but that does not address the point in contention. What does this term mean, and where did it come from?
Clearly the "common law" interpretation came from Calvin's case.

There is only a term of art that you disagree with. The only dispute in court would be to simply dismiss the filing as meritless, or to dismiss as frivolous filing and award costs to the other party.

Clearly it was adapted from the English common law as recited in Blackstone. It's adaption is without substantive change except to note the Americans were citizens and not subjects.

Black's Law Distionary, 11th Ed.

natural born subject. (17c) 1. A person born within the dominion of a monarchy., esp. England. 2. A person born outside the dominion of a monarchy to a parent who is subject of that monarchy. 3. Hist. A person born outside the dominion of a monarchy to a father who is a subject of that monarchy. See natural born citizen (3).

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, for Law of nations states succinctly, "See International Law."

International law per Black's is "Those laws governing the legal relations between nations. Rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of nations and of international organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical. Restatement, Foreign Relations (Third) § 101. Body of consensual principles which have evolved from customs and practices civilized nations utilize in regulating their relationships and such customs have great moral force. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matshushita Elec. Co., Ltd., D.C.Pa., 494 F.Supp. 1161, 1178. International customs and treaties are generally considered to be the two most important sources of international law.

It would appear that the birthers desire to subjugate the Constitution to international customs and treaties as those have evolved into principles of international law. Perhaps they believe the Law of Nations is a set of statutes legislated by the Congress of Planet Earth and signed into law by the Planetary President. International law pertains to relations between nations, not the domestic determinations of any one nation.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) observes:

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
"'British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. '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. '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. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality."
The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:
"1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien."
"2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien."
And he adds:
"The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory, at least, depended not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the King of England, and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of, the Crown."
Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
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.

According to the law of England, a natural born subject of that country who came to the United States and became a naturalized citizen continued to owe allegiance to the crown. The crown therefore had the legal right to impress him into military service for the crown. This little legal point was resolved by the War of 1812. They no longer tell us that British law controlling British subjects makes a good hot damn to U.S. citizens. U.S. citizenship is controlled by U.S. law. The domestic definition of citizenship is not controlled by international law anywhere.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
I can see you are chomping at the bit to get straight into American law, but I think you are starting way late in the process. But to momentarily go along with this effort to Jump up to 1868 I will say that I regard an amendment as higher than just statute law, but there are three issues with relying on that amendment.

Absolutely no law prior to the 14th Amendment which in any way conflicts with the 14th Amendment is in any way relevant. From the moment 14A was adopted by the people it became the law of the land and struck down all law contrary thereto.

While the Framers of the 14th stated that their chosen language was only a statement of the law as it had existed since the Declaration, a claim affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, even if you are of the opinion it was not so consistent, the 14th has been the law since its adoption. The words are clear. To change them requires an amendment.

It applies to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

It does not state that it applies to all persons born in the United States of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty. Your adopted tagline is not imbued with the force of law.

14A says not a mumbling word about parents or their allegiance.

It speaks to jurisdiction. That clearly means subject to our laws. Those not subject to our laws enjoy diplomatic immunity. These are accredited diplomats, visiting royalty, and their family, including newborn infants.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Personal opinions are not law.

I can see you are chomping at the bit to get straight into American law, but I think you are starting way late in the process. But to momentarily go along with this effort to Jump up to 1868 I will say that I regard an amendment as higher than just statute law, but there are three issues with relying on that amendment.
1. What does that verbiage mean?
2. Was that amendment legitimate?
3. Does this amendment affect the meaning of "natural born citizen"?
We can have a massively long argument on just those three aspects alone.
(Assuming you take the contrary view to myself.)
Everyone born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is born a citizen of the United States.
I guess you want to start with that one.
Okay, what did the framers of the 14th intend when they inserted that verbiage into the 14th amendment? What do they mean by "subject to its jurisdiction?"
I personally think starting the debate by referencing events in 1868 is wrong headed. Natural born citizens existed before 1868, and clearly the founders meant those types of citizens, not those created by some subsequent statute, which sounds to me like the very opposite of a "natural" citizen.
The founders were really big on this stuff called "Natural law". It was quite the rage in the 18th century. They believed that there were a set of natural laws derived from God and which could be discerned by intelligent and objective men.

Subject to the jurisdiction meant subject to our laws. If you hold that aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then an alien jumping the border may kill your children, rape your wife, burn down your house, and take you as a slave and not be subject to prosecution because he is not subject to United States jurisdiction. Alternate interpretations of who is subject to U.S. laws have been routinely dismissed by courts as frivolous. Birthers 0-225, all dismissed pre-trial. None survived pre-trial motions to dismiss. No appeal prevailed.

Whether the fourteenth amendment is legitimate in your opinion, or in the opinion of others, is legally irrelevant. It was certified by the Secretary of State as having been ratified, and the Supreme Court found it had no authority to look behind that certification. That is final. You can't contest it in court, and you can't argue it in court. You are free to argue it on the internet as your personal opinion. That has zero legal effect. Until the Constitution is amended, 14A will remain the law of the land. United States citizenship for persons born outside the territory of the United States is determined by United States federal law in effect at the time of birth.

Neither the original Constitution nor the 14th Amendment affected the meaning of the legal terms of art, natural born subject, and natural born citizen. Neither even attempted a definition as such was not necessary. The Framers knew what it meant. There are two classes of citizenship, and two only: natural born and naturalized. Historically, England had more, such as denizen, but the United States does not and never has. The English common law had been in the colonies since before the Framers were born. They were quite familiar with Blackstone's Commentaries. The first real text on constitutional law was Tucker's Blackstone, which was Blackstone's Commentaries adapted for use under the U.S. Constitution. As the Supreme court stated, the Constitution is written in the language of the common law and cannot be read without resort to the common law. The term as used since the founding is an adaptation of natural born subject, changed to natural born citizen to reflect the change in status of the Americans from subjects to citizens.

You scoff at man made law. The United States is governed by man made law.

We do not have ecclesiastical courts. We do not have courts of morality. We do not decide U.S. citizenship in an international court at the Hague. We have no federal common law courts. The entirety of the federal court system was created by the Congress, pursuant to the Constitution, Article III. When Washington was inaugurated, there were no federal courts or judges.

The federal courts were first created by the Act of 24 Sept. 1789, 1 Stat. 73, An Act to create the Judicial Courts of the United States. England had common law courts which grew up from custom and usage. All United States federal courts were created by statute law.

Common law has no authority where a written, statute law conflicts. The common law is caselaw; the collection of court made law which arises over time. Court opinions may be struck down by subsequent statute laws, or subsequent court opinions.

There is no general federal common law in the United States. There are 50 states with 50 different set of laws, and differing legal systems.

Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.

common law. (14c) The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions; CASELAW.

Any more recent enacted statute stikes down any conflicting prior court opinion.

A more recent constitutional amendment strikes down an older conflicting constitutional provision and any prior conflicting statutes.

Whenever a statute law conflicts with some common law, the common law is struck down.

Can you tell me where the Declaration of Independence was written?
And the US Constitution?
I regard the location as significant for this discussion.

If you consider the place of writing more important than what the documents actually say, you can write all about where it was written.

FWIW, I believe the Declaration was written by British subjects in a British colony.

This had no applicability to the common Scot at the time. It only pertained the landed gentry who had been bestowed ownership of English land by the King of England.

It would have eaten on the landed gentry, and it would have eaten on the commoner as a perception that Scots are regarded as lesser than Englishmen.

It has not a single damn thing to do with the right of the United States to define its citizenship in any way it finds to its liking.

I think it has quite a lot to do with why English Common law is perceived to be jus soli, and from thence, why people believe the same ideas were incorporated into American law.

The rooting of Jus Soli in English common law is not so solid as many would have us believe and appears to have been done in an effort to avoid a severe crises of Union.

The two dissenting Judges (In defiance of the King adamantly wanting this specific outcome) is telling, and it implies the rest went along for reasons other than this being their understanding of the law.

Law was politicized back then too.

Were there legal claims for the contrary opinion? It seems there was.

I say again, and again, United States citizenship, as with the citizenship of every nation on earth, is a domestic determination relying solely on its own domestic laws. People running around before there was a United States did not decide what law would be used in the United States.

Well now, I am told that the US follows English Common law regarding the matter of citizenship. It would seem then that whatever English common law says on the matter is what American law adopted. (If the theory is correct that we adopted English law regarding "citizenship." )

You may make believe your personal opinion overrides Supreme Court opinions, but it doesn't.

Don't make this about me. I'm just an observer. And if I observe that the Supreme Court is in error, it is usually because I have some facts at my disposal that demonstrate them to be in error.

They do not speak "ex cathedra" because they have power. People in power can be factually wrong too. There power does not give them infallibility.

And yet, it is an incontrovertible fact that Chinese children, born in the United States of foreign parents ineligible to be naturalized, were natural born United States citizens.

For various meanings of the term, but we see men being called "women" today, but it still isn't true.

You must appeal to old foreign laws, or claims of laws, because you know absolutely that United States law is contrary to your desired result.

Much of what we call law nowadays is nonsensical crap that is at odds with reality. That it is "the law" does not make it true, it simply means the powers will force people to pretend it is true.

Again, I draw a distinction between reality and subjective opinion.

In Kerchner et al v. Obama et al

I have absolutely no respect for modern court decisions. Modern courts are a joke, and nothing they say can be accepted as real without checking the background facts yourself.

The answer to this question of what the Founders meant by "natural born citizen" does not lie in the 21rst century, it lies in the 18th century.

*That* is where the facts can be found, not in modern clown courts.

There is only a term of art that you disagree with. The only dispute in court would be to simply dismiss the filing as meritless, or to dismiss as frivolous filing and award costs to the other party.

I give no credence to the opinions of modern courts, especially when they simply adopt the fallacies put forth by previous courts. The "argumentum ad antiquitatem" methodology of courts has always been ridiculous in my opinion.

We have seen courts putting out one ridiculous opinion after another, and as a consequence they have lost credibility with rational thinking people, especially those who are better informed than they.

Clearly it was adapted from the English common law as recited in Blackstone.

Many years ago I ran across the searchable "complete works of Blackstone." I looked for the word "citizen" in there, and there were a number of entries on it. Not nearly so many entries as there were for the word "subject", but there were some. I noticed an interesting pattern about his usage of the word "citizen." Perhaps you should take a look at his usage of the term and tell me if you see the same pattern?

It's adaption is without substantive change except to note the Americans were citizens and not subjects.

Well that seems an important distinction to me. Why would they change the term away from the normal and commonly used term "subject"?

This seems like an important change. Everyone knows the word "subject" is attached to English Common law, but where did this word "citizen" come from? Is it just another word meaning "subject", or does it have some meaning beyond that?

United States v. Wong Kim Ark,

Ah yes, the Plessey v Ferguson court. Well they certainly wouldn't have gotten anything else wrong, would they?

Neither the original Constitution nor the 14th Amendment affected the meaning of the legal terms of art, natural born subject, and natural born citizen.

Very glad we can agree on that point. So why bring 14th amendment stuff into this discussion? It seems our nexus point lies around the 1776-1787 time period.

Neither even attempted a definition as such was not necessary.

I agree. The founders at that time knew what they meant when they wrote that term of art into our Constitution and they believed everyone involved understood what the term meant.

The term as used since the founding is an adaptation of natural born subject, changed to natural born citizen to reflect the change in status of the Americans from subjects to citizens.

Well what then is the difference between a "subject" and a "citizen", and where did they get the ideas for this difference? What is the origin for this term "citizen"? You should look it up using an etymology dictionary.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/citizen

If you consider the place of writing more important than what the documents actually say, you can write all about where it was written.

Well clearly the location where it was written is not more important than what was written. That rule would seemingly only apply in your mind to where people are produced.

But just because the place of writing is not more important doesn't mean it has no importance. I think it has quite a lot of importance.

Why do I think it matters? Because historical events leave an impact in the community surrounding them. I think if there are any clues to be found as to what was intended, one would need to look at the body of understanding from that community in which this event occurred.

The law community of Philadelphia from this 1776-1787 period should know very well what was the intent of the Founders.

FWIW, I believe the Declaration was written by British subjects in a British colony.

And so it was, but the US Constitution was written by American "citizens."

The Declaration of Independence transformed them from "Subjects" of the King to "Citizens" of the Republic and as a consequence they left their "perpetual allegiance" required by English Common law.

The common law attachment to the King was broken by the Declaration, and even more so by the formation of the Republic.

[DiogenesLamp #49] Don't make this about me. I'm just an observer. And if I observe that the Supreme Court is in error, it is usually because I have some facts at my disposal that demonstrate them to be in error.
[DiogenesLamp #49] I have absolutely no respect for modern court decisions. Modern courts are a joke
[DiogenesLamp #50] I give no credence to the opinions of modern courts,
[DiogenesLamp #50] We have seen courts putting out one ridiculous opinion after another, and as a consequence they have lost credibility with rational thinking people
[DiogenesLamp #50] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Ah yes, the Plessey v Ferguson court. Well they certainly wouldn't have gotten anything else wrong, would they?

You dismiss the courts. You dismiss court precedent which has repeatedly been reaffirmed and has stood for well over a century. You are professing a make believe world where you determine what is, and is not, United States law.

Your misstatements of the English common law, and misconstruing of Calvin's Case are egregious errors.

[DiogenesLamp #50] why bring 14th amendment stuff into this discussion? It seems our nexus point lies around the 1776-1787 time period.

Your understanding of the law is bass ackwards. The 14th Amendment has controlled the citizenship of all born in the United States since its adoption. It is all prior crap which is irrelevant because anything inconsistent with the 14th Amendment was rendered null and void. No other law can change any provision in the Constitution.

By the Constitution, the people created the Judicial branch of government and delegated authority to the courts to interpret the laws.

Determination of United States citizenship is based solely and exclusively on whatever United States law exists at the time of birth. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States at birth. The citizenship of the parents is irrelevant.

[DiogenesLamp #50] Well that seems an important distinction to me. Why would they change the term away from the normal and commonly used term "subject"?

[DiogenesLamp #50] Well what then is the difference between a "subject" and a "citizen", and where did they get the ideas for this difference? What is the origin for this term "citizen"? You should look it up using an etymology dictionary.

Subjects owe allegiance to their sovereign king. As I have informed you repeatedly, Americans are not subjects of a sovereign king. Citizens are members of, and owe allegiance to, a political community whose members are the sovereign. As you well know, subject is not a commonly used term for a sovereign. It is inapplicable.

When discussing law, usage of a legal dictionary is indicated. As you reject the application of United States law to United States domestic affairs, and you reject the United States courts and their opinions, it is not possible to engage in a rational discussion of citizenship as defined by United States law.

The 14th Amendment states clearly the citizenship status of all persons born in the United States. The United States citizenship status of persons born outside the United States is controlled by the applicable United States law at the time of birth.

Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) the Opinion of the Court observes:

169 U.S. 655:

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.

169 U.S. 656-658:

In Udny v. Udny, (1869) L.R. 1 H.L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicil of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: “The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicil.” P. 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage relied on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying:
“The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions: one, by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.”
And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicil, domicilium, the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which “the personal rights of the party, that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy or intestacy, [169 U. S. 657] must depend,” he yet distinctly recognized that a man’s political status, his country, patria, and his “nationality, that is, natural allegiance,” “may depend on different laws in different countries.” Pp. 457, 460. He evidently used the word “citizen” not as equivalent to “subject,” but rather to “inhabitant,” and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:
“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”
Cockburn on Nationality, 7.
Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:
“‘British subject’ means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. ‘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. ‘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.’ This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”
The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:
“1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [169 U. S. 658] person’s birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.”
“2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person’s birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.”

169 U.S. 682:

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,—both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 18b; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent, Comm. 39, 42.

169 U.S. at 687:

The words 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the congress which proposed the amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange, and as the equivalent of the words 'within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and the converse of the words 'out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States,' as habitually used in the naturalization acts.

169 U.S. at 693-94

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, '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.' It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,—it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.' Executive Documents H. R. No. 10, 1st Sess. 32d Cong. p. 4; 6 Webster's Works, 526; U. S. v. Carlisle, 16 Wall. 147, 155; Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a; Ellesmere, Postnati, 63; 1 Hale, P. C. 62; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92.
To hold that the fourteenth amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3

Policy Manual > Volume 12 - Citizenship and Naturalization > Part H - Children of U.S. Citizens > Chapter 3 - United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
State Department
Policy Manual
Chapter 3 - United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a person born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe. [1]
In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:
The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and
The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision. [2]
A person born abroad through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) to a U.S. citizen gestational mother who is not also the genetic mother acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under INA 301 or INA 309 if:
The person’s gestational mother is recognized by the relevant jurisdiction as the child’s legal parent at the time of the person’s birth; and
The person meets all other applicable requirements under either INA 301 or INA 309. [3]
Until the Act of October 10, 1978, persons who had acquired U.S. citizenship through birth outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements to retain their citizenship. This legislation eliminated retention requirements for persons who were born after October 10, 1952. There may be cases where a person who was born before that date, and therefore subject to the retention requirements, may have failed to retain citizenship. [4]
An officer should determine whether a person acquired citizenship at birth by referring to the applicable statutory provisions and conditions that existed at the time of the person’s birth. These provisions have been modified extensively over the years. [5] The following sections provide the current law.
B. Child Born in Wedlock [6]
1. Child of Two U.S. Citizen Parents [7]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
Both of the child’s parents are U.S. citizens; and
At least one parent had resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions.
2. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and U.S. National [8]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
One parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national; and
The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year.
3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Alien Parent [9]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:
One parent is an alien and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and
The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.
Time abroad counts as physical presence in the United States if the time abroad was:
As a member of the U.S. armed forces in honorable status;?
Under the employment of the U.S. government or other qualifying organizations; or
As a dependent unmarried son or daughter of such persons.
4. Child of a U.S. Citizen Mother and Alien Father [10]
A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if:
The child was born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934;
The child’s father is an alien;
The child’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth; and
The child’s U.S. citizen mother resided in the United States prior to the child’s birth.
[snip]

Well clearly the location where it was written is not more important than what was written. That rule would seemingly only apply in your mind to where people are produced.

WHAT it says determines the law. WHERE it was written does not.

WHAT the writer wrote determines the law. INTENT, what he MEANT to write does not.

Words are adopted, intent is not.

The law community of Philadelphia from this 1776-1787 period should know very well what was the intent of the Founders.

Quite aside from the inanity of thinking that your divined version of what the law community of Philadelphia thought, and that such speaks for the intent of the Founders, the Declaration was not written by Founders from Philadelphia. It was largely crafted by Thomas Jefferson while tended to by his slave Jupiter, based upon the previous writing of George Mason. Perhaps you should engage in psychoanalyzing the law community of Virginia.

Declaration of Independence Authors: Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, John Adams of Massachusetts, Robert Livingston of New York, Roger Sherman of Massachusetts, and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania.

Jefferson of Virginia is considered the primary author, and it is well known that he used the writings of George Mason of Virginia as a crib sheet.

Your contention that documents written in Philadelphia, by men of other states, should be interpreted by your perception of the intent of the legal community of Philadelphia is as ridiculous as interpreting the intent of the Paris Peace Agreement by divining the intent of the legal community of Paris, France.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/virginia-declaration-of-rights

The Virginia Declaration of Rights
Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.
A Declaration of Rights
Is made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
The Virginia Declaration of Rights
Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
[snip]

The Constitution was not framed by the Founders, but by the Framers. The intent of the lawgivers was not ratified by the people, the black letter words were ratified. The plain meaning of the words, as they were generally understood at the time are the law of the land. The imagined intent of this or that Framer is not.

The common law attachment to the King was broken by the Declaration, and even more so by the formation of the Republic.

All attachment or allegiance to the king was broken. Being completely broken in the first instance, it was not broken moreso in the second instance.

The former colonies were free to adopt what laws and legal system they chose. They formally and explicitly chose to adopt so much of the English common law as was not repugnant to the Constitution. Caselaw from England may be cited today as instructive, but it is not binding on any American court.

Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (1834)

33 U.S. 655 (1834)

Previous to this case, injunctions had issued out of chancery to prevent the publication of certain works, at the instance of those who claimed a property in tue copyright, but no decision had been given. And a case had been commenced, at law, between Tonson and Collins on the same ground, and was argued with great ability, more than once, and |the court of king’s bench were about to take the opinion of all the judges, when they discovered that the suit had been brought by collusion, to try the question and it was dismissed.
This question was brought before the house of lords, in the case of Donaldson v. Beckett and others, reported in 4 Burr. 2408; Lord Mansfield, being a peer, through feelings of delicacy, declined giving any opinion. The eleven judges gave their opinions on the following points. 1st. Whether at common law an author of any book or literary composition, had the sole right of first printing, and publishing the same for sale; and might bring an action against any person who printed, published and sold the same, without his consent. On this question there were eight judges in the affirmative, and three in the negative.
2d. If the author had such right originally, did the law take it away, upon his printing and publishing such book or literary composition; and might any person, afterward, reprint and sell, for his own benefit, such book or literary composition, against the will of the author. This question was answered in the affirmative, by four judges, and in the negative by seven.
3d. If such action would have lain, at common law, is it taken away by the statute of 8 Anne; and is an author, by the said statute, precluded from every remedy, except on the foundation of the said statute, and on the terms of the conditions prescribed thereby. Six of the judges, to five, decided that the remedy must be under the statute.

Where any statute law applies, such as the statute of 8 Anne, common law is swept aside, made inapplicable. The statute of 8 Anne is from 8 April 1710.

Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465 (1888)

124 U.S. 478, Opinion of the Court:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense, of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591.

There is no general federal common law in the United States. The common law of England is not United States law. In states which adopted it, it is state law where it is not inconsistent with federal law, or preempted by state statute law. In the face of any applicable statute law, in the United States and in England, the statute law is the law and the common law is not.

Firstly, my apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this. I just went through a very unpleasant week with a norovirus and was unable to do much of anything. I finally started getting over it this last Saturday, and by Monday I was able to resume doing stuff.

You dismiss the courts.

I dismiss "argumentum ad verecundiam."

But regarding Modern courts especially, they have shown themselves to be morons and liars, and why any thinking man who's aware of their logical/factual gymnastics might still have respect for them is a mystery to me.

You dismiss court precedent which has repeatedly been reaffirmed and has stood for well over a century.

"Precedent" is the belief that someone at the beginning of the chain got something right, but other than "respect" for "authority", it offers nothing in the way of proof of correctness.

Your misstatements of the English common law, and misconstruing of Calvin's Case are egregious errors.

I'm not sure what "misstatements" I have made regarding English common law, and I didn't misconstrue anything about Calvin's case, I merely point out what I consider very good evidence that it appears likely it was decided specifically to do what the King needed done rather than as an objective interpretation of what the English law was understood to be in that era.

Your understanding of the law is bass ackwards. The 14th Amendment has controlled the citizenship of all born in the United States since its adoption. It is all prior crap which is irrelevant because anything inconsistent with the 14th Amendment was rendered null and void. No other law can change any provision in the Constitution.

My recollection is that you admitted the 14th has nothing to do with "natural born citizen" and I agreed with you about that. My point is why try to understand "natural born citizen" by initiating an argument based on 14th amendment man made citizenship?

Citizens are members of, and owe allegiance to, a political community whose members are the sovereign.

And where/when did that idea get established?

As you reject the application of United States law to United States domestic affairs,

Now that is a strawman statement. I said no such thing.

In everything you wrote after your last quote, all I see from you are excerpts for things that didn't happen in 1776-1787 time period, so they don't have any bearing on what the founders meant when they wrote "natural born citizen."

I'm interested in root causes, not precedents. You need to go to the roots, not the leaves and flowers.

You should start with John Jay's letter to Washington. Actually you should start with our first official document. Why is "subject" changed to "citizen"?

Where did this word "citizen" creep into the English language? The dictionaries of the era say it mean "person who lived in a city/town."

No indication that it means member of a nation.

A dictionary of the English language. by Samuel Johnson, 1768.

WHAT it says determines the law.

Sure, when everyone understands what it says. What if they don't? What if they have trouble grasping what was meant by a specific word? Where do you go for clarification?

WHAT the writer wrote determines the law. INTENT, what he MEANT to write does not.

When the words are unclear as to their meaning, then an effort to grasp intent must be initiated.

Your contention that documents written in Philadelphia, by men of other states, should be interpreted by your perception of the intent of the legal community of Philadelphia

Straw man. I didn't say that. What I said is that if there is any difficulty grasping the meanings of words or "terms of art", then perhaps you can get clarification as to their meaning or intent by looking at the understanding of their meaning from within the writings of the legal community of Philadelphia.

They were there after all, and if anyone should be expected to know what the founders meant by "natural born citizen", it should be these men who participated in the event, or who associated with them during this era of common legal understanding of the terms.

All attachment or allegiance to the king was broken. Being completely broken in the first instance, it was not broken moreso in the second instance.

Around this time in history, there came to be quite the series of conflicts between American law and English law. Apparently not all "attachment or allegiance" to the King was broken. There was still matters in which courts wanted to cite English law which was at odds with American ideas and principles, and it was causing a great deal of trouble and consternation in the states.

Much of English statute law and common law was simply incompatible with American legal principles and had to be discarded. Madison even weighed in on the subject in a letter which I currently cannot find, because it's been so long ago and i've forgotten where I put it. (if you want to help find it, I believe Madison starts by saying "What can be said of the common law?")

At long last, in the case of Pennsylvania, the Legislature ordered the Pennsylvania Supreme court to resolve the issue by deciding what part of English law should be thrown out, and what part should be kept.

You dismiss the courts.

I dismiss "argumentum ad verecundiam."

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from inappropriate authority) is an appeal to the testimony of an authority outside of the authority's special field of expertise.

The U.S. Supreme Court is NOT an inappropriate authority for the interpretation of United States laws.

YOUR OPINIONS, contrary to the official opinions of the Courts, are the argument of an authority outside the authority's special field of expertise. You are arguing YOUR OPINIONS, and dismissing the Constitution, laws and court opinions contrary to YOUR OPINIONS. I am not here to argue your opinions are not your opinions. You are free to have any opinion, but the Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark is an expression of the law, and your opinion is not.

[DiogenesLamp #49] Don't make this about me. I'm just an observer. And if I observe that the Supreme Court is in error, it is usually because I have some facts at my disposal that demonstrate them to be in error.
[DiogenesLamp #49] I have absolutely no respect for modern court decisions. Modern courts are a joke
[DiogenesLamp #50] I give no credence to the opinions of modern courts,
[DiogenesLamp #50] We have seen courts putting out one ridiculous opinion after another, and as a consequence they have lost credibility with rational thinking people
[DiogenesLamp #50] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Ah yes, the Plessey v Ferguson court. Well they certainly wouldn't have gotten anything else wrong, would they?

You may consider the Supreme Court to be in error, think it is a joke, give it no credence, and see their opinions as ridiculous. That does not change the fact that their opinions state what the law is. Roe says abortion is lawful and constitutional. You may hold that the court is wrong, but look about, and abortion is legal in all fifty states.

The Constitution states that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Nothing prior to 14A, inconsistent with 14A, can exert any legal force in the United States. Citizenship is a matter of Federal jurisdiction. English common law does not apply. No foreign law applies.

There are two classes of citizen, and two only — naturalized, and natural born citizens.

Federal law states who, born outside the United States, is born a citizen of the United States. It is not a recent concept.

The Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103) provided:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

As you reject the application of United States law to United States domestic affairs,
Now that is a strawman statement. I said no such thing.

You have been given the law. You do not agree with the law. You have dismissed the law and the courts. You have interposed your opinion.

I will argue the law. I will not argue that your opinion is not your opinion. I will argue that your opinion is not the law.

You have yet to argue UNITED STATES law. United States citizenship is determined solely and exclusively by UNITED STATES law.

When the words are unclear as to their meaning, then an effort to grasp intent must be initiated.

The Framers were not flummoxed about the meaning of natural born subject or natural born citizen. The words of the citizenship clause of 14A are too clear to admit of any misunderstanding.

The purported intent of the lawgiver is irrelevant if the actual words of the law have a clear meaning. The words prevail even where the lawgiver's words are contrary to his intent. This is even so with legislation where the legislators voted to pass legislation. The words are ratified or passed into law, the intent is not.

Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 86, 108-09 (1925)

The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.

"A Matter of Interpretation," Federal Courts and the Law, by Antonin Scalia, 1997. This book contains an essay by Antonin Scalia and responses to that essay by professors Ronald Dworkin, Mary Ann Glendon, Laurence Tribe, and Gordon Wood. There is a final response by Antonin Scalia.

Laurence Tribe, pp. 65-6

Let me begin with my principal area of agreement with Justice Scalia. Like him, I believe that when we ask what a legal text means — what it requires of us, what it permits us to do, and what it forbids — we ought not to be inquiring (except perhaps very peripherally) into the ideas, intentions, or expectations subjectively held by whatever particular persons were, as a historical matter, involved in drafting, promulgating, or ratifying the text in question. To be sure, those matters, when reliably ascertainable, might shed some light on otherwise ambiguous or perplexing words or phrases - by pointing us, as readers, toward the linguistic frame of reference within which the people to whom those words or phrases were addressed would have "translated" and thus understood them. But such thoughts and beliefs can never substitute for what was in fact enacted as law. Like Justice Scalia, I never cease to be amazed by the arguments of judges, lawyers, or others who proceed as though legal texts were little more than interesting documentary evidence of what some lawgiver had in mind. And, like the justice, I find little to commend the proposition that anyone ought, in any circumstances I can imagine, to feel legally bound to obey another's mere wish or thought, or legally bound to act in accord with another's mere hope or fear.

Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845)

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

United States v Union Pacific Railroad Company, 91 U.S. 72 (1875)

In construing an act of Congress, we are not at liberty to recur to the views of individual members in debate nor to consider the motives which influenced them to vote for or against its passage. The act itself speaks the will of Congress, and this is to be ascertained from the language used. But courts, in construing a statute, may with propriety recur to the history of the times when it was passed, and this is frequently necessary in order to ascertain the reason as well as the meaning of particular provisions in it. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 24; Preston v. Browder, 1 Wheat. 115, 120 [argument of counsel -- omitted].

Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 254 (1901)

In expounding this law, the judgment of the Court cannot in any degree be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Much of English statute law and common law was simply incompatible with American legal principles and had to be discarded. Madison even weighed in on the subject in a letter which I currently cannot find, because it's been so long ago and i've forgotten where I put it. (if you want to help find it, I believe Madison starts by saying "What can be said of the common law?")
At long last, in the case of Pennsylvania, the Legislature ordered the Pennsylvania Supreme court to resolve the issue by deciding what part of English law should be thrown out, and what part should be kept.

That you would even think this somehow applies to a curent or recent United States citizenship determination indicates you fail to understand the law itself.

Individual STATES adopted so much of the Common Law of England as they saw fit. The FEDERAL government, the UNITED STATES, —NEVER— adopted the Common Law of England.

United States citizenship is determined by the FEDERAL government, NOT any STATE government. FEDERAL law applies, the Common Law of England does not. State constitutions or statutes are irrelevant.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania of 1776 did not address the issue of adoption of the common law of England. It was addressed in Statute law. There is a constitutional provision using a noteworthy turn of phrase, natural born subject, and also the term denizen.

Constitution of Pennsylvania — 1776

SECT. 42. Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.

Pennsylvania, Act of 1777,

An Act to revive and put in force such and so much of the late laws of the province on Pennsylvania, as is judged necessary to be in force in this commonwealth, and to revive and establish the Courts of Justice, and for other purposes therein mentioned.
II. Be it therefore enacted, and it is hereby enacted, That each and every one of the laws or acts of General Assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said be province on the fourteenth day of May last, shall be in force from and binding on the inhabitants of this state from and after the tenth day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this General Assembly; and all and every person and persons whomsoever are hereby enjoined and required to yield obedience to the said laws, as the case may require until the said laws or acts of General Assembly respectively shall be repealed or altered, or until they expire by their own limitation; and the common law and such of the statute laws of England as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as is hereafter excepted.

The Will of Sarah Zane, Opinion of the Circuit Court of the United States, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1833)

The first law passed on the change of government, declared the province laws in force till altered or repealed; also the common law and such parts of the statute laws of England as had been before in force.—“And so much of any law or act of Assembly as declares, orders, directs, commands any matter or thing repugnant to, or inconsistent with the constitution, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no force or effect.” 1 Dallas’ Laws, 722.

The words of the United States Constitution are too clear to admit of any misunderstanding.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

There are only two ways to become a U.S. citizen. (1) to be born a citizen, or (2) to be naturalized. To be naturalized, one must be an alien, legally present in the country. United States law has never recognized the existence of a denizen.

A State does not have any say whatever in who are citizens of the State. If a citizen of California chooses to move to Florida or Texas and resides there, he or she automatically becomes a citizen of Florida or Texas.

Attempting to cite English common law or state laws or state court opinions to nullify or modify any provision of the Constitution or Federal statute law is a non-starter.

As for a lack of adoption of the Common Law of England by the United States, as opposed to partial adoption by individual member states, see United States v. Worrall, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 384 (1798).

Chase, J. at 2 U.S. 394-395

2 U.S. 394
The question, however, does not arise about the power; but about the exercise of the power: Whether the Courts of the United States can punish a man for any act, before it is declared by a law of the United States to be criminal? Now, it appears to my mind, to be as essential, that Congress should define the offences to be tried, and apportion the punishments to be inflicted, as that they should erect Courts to try the criminal, or to pronounce a sentence on conviction. It is attempted, however, to supply the silence of the Constitution and Statutes of the Union, by resorting to the Common law, for a definition and punishment of the offence which has been committed: But, in my opinion, the United States, as a Federal government, have no common law; and, consequently, no indictment can be maintained in their Courts, for offences merely at the common law. If, indeed, the United States can be supposed, for a moment, to have a common law, it must, I persume, be that of England; and, yet, it is impossible to trace when, or how, the system was adopted, or introduced. With respect to the individual States, the difficulty does not occur. When the American colonies were first settled by our ancestors, it was held, as well by the settlers, as by the Judges and lawyers of England, that they brought hither, as a birth-right and inheritance; so much of the common law, as was applicable to their local situation, and change of circumstances. But each colony judged for itself, what parts of the common law were applicable to its new condition; and in various modes, by Legislative acts, by Judicial decisions, or by constant usage, adopted some parts, and rejected others. Hence, he who shall travel through the different States, will soon discover, that the whole of the common law of England has been no where introduced; that some States have rejected what others have adopted; and that there is, in short, a great and essential diversity; in the subjects to which the common law is applied, as well as in the extent of its application. The common law, therefore, of one State, is not the common law of another; but the common law of England, is the law of each State, so far as each state has adopted it; and it results from that position, connected with the Judicial act, that the common law will always apply to suits between citizen and citizen, whether they are instituted in a Federal, or State, Court.
2 U.S. 395
But the question recurs, when and how, have the Courts of the United States acquired a common law jurisdiction, in criminal cases? The United States must possess the common law themselves, before they can communicate it to their Judicial agents: Now, the United States did not bring it with them from England; the Constitution does not create it; and no act of Congress has assumed it. Besides, what is the common law to which we are referred? Is it the common law entire, as it exists in England; or modified as it exists in some of the States; and of the various modifications, which are we to select, the system of Georgia or New Hampshire, of Pennsylvania or Connecticut?

You may consider the Supreme Court to be in error, think it is a joke, give it no credence, and see their opinions as ridiculous. That does not change the fact that their opinions state what the law is. Roe says abortion is lawful and constitutional. You may hold that the court is wrong, but look about, and abortion is legal in all fifty states.

And you therefore argue it is correct?

Courts are not the voice of God, and people need to stop treating them like they are. That they have power we can all see. This does not make them factually correct. What makes them factually correct is getting it right in their weighing of facts and evidence.

You have been given the law. You do not agree with the law. You have dismissed the law and the courts. You have interposed your opinion.

This is what *you* are doing now. You are expressing your opinion, declaring it mine, and then chastising me for having such a ridiculous opinion.

It is a silly game you are playing and I wish you would stop it.

Once more, can we get back to something that has a semblance of reason to it? Where did this term "natural born citizen" come from?

You can't claim to know founders/framers intent without grasping the origins of how the term changed from "natural born subject" to "natural born citizen."

Stop dragging Wong Kim Ark into it, that happened in 1898. Stop dragging the 14th amendment into it, that happened in 1868.

We need to start in the period 1776, because that is the first usage of the word "citizen" on an official government document. How did that word get there and where did it come from?

Where did Jefferson get it?

The Framers were not flummoxed about the meaning of natural born subject or natural born citizen. The words of the citizenship clause of 14A are too clear to admit of any misunderstanding.

Again with the 14th amendment! You already said, and I already agreed, that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with "natural born citizen" as meant by the framers in 1787.

And you are wrong about the words of the 14th being too clear to admit of any misunderstanding. You clearly have not read what Senator Trumbull said on the matter of how they changed the original verbiage because of "temporary allegiance" and so forth. The meaning was much clearer in their earlier drafts of the document, but because someone told Trumbull about "temporary allegiance" they took out the more clear words, and substituted much more vague words.

The purported intent of the lawgiver is irrelevant if the actual words of the law have a clear meaning.

Which they absolutely do not in the case of "natural born citizen."

That you would even think this somehow applies to a curent or recent United States citizenship determination indicates you fail to understand the law itself.

I understand that in the modern judicial system, "the law" means whatever the judges say it means, even when it clearly contradicts the obvious purpose for which the law was created. The 14th amendment was about Slaves right to vote, but our courts have made it about queer marriage and murdering babies, among other stupid and ridiculous notions they expect us to accept.

The FEDERAL government, the UNITED STATES, —NEVER— adopted the Common Law of England.

If you believe that, then why do you insist "natural born citizen" derives from common law? Is that not a federal issue?

FEDERAL law applies, the Common Law of England does not.

Okay, so then were do they define "natural born citizen" in the Federal law of 1787? (or earlier)

And don't try to use a later definition. They cannot create a term of art for 1787 that is defined later, the term must be understood at the time it entered the Constitution.

Courts are not the voice of God, and people need to stop treating them like they are. That they have power we can all see. This does not make them factually correct.

Court decisions are legally binding and enforceable. Your feelings and opinions are not. I am not debating your feelings and opinions. They have zero effect at law.

Once more, can we get back to something that has a semblance of reason to it? Where did this term "natural born citizen" come from?

I have already shown and documented that the Constitution was written using terminology from the English common law. The Framers took the term natural born subject and adapted it to American usage, thus natural born citizen. Americans are citizens, but not subjects. There are no subjects of the sovereign king of the United States. That is because the collective citizens are the sovereign and a king does not exist.

Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 21 October 1, 1783 - October 31, 1784

Thomas Jefferson's Notes

[December ? 1783] (1)

Qu. 1. Can an American citizen, adult, now inherit lands in England?
Natural subjects can inherit--Aliens cannot.
There is no middle character--every man must be the one or the other of these.
A Natural subject is one born within the king's allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person's being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance.
An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power.
The treaty of peace acknowleges we are no longer to owe allegiance to the king of G.B. It acknowleges us no longer as Natural subjects then.
It makes us citizens of independent states; it makes us aliens then.

James Madison, address to Congress, May 22, 1789:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.

With the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 we stopped being natural born subjects of England and became citizens of independent states.

Stop dragging Wong Kim Ark into it, that happened in 1898. Stop dragging the 14th amendment into it, that happened in 1868.

The 14th Amendment establishes the citizenship status of every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Any prior junk you can reference that in any way conflicts with the 14th Amendment on citizenship is null and void.

Wong Kim Ark is standing precedent of the United States Supreme Court. Any feeling and opinions you have contrary to the holding in Wong Kim Ark are irrelevant to stating what United States law actually is. Your opinion and feelings are not biinding or enforceable, unlike the opinion of the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.

We need to start in the period 1776, because that is the first usage of the word "citizen" on an official government document. How did that word get there and where did it come from?
Where did Jefferson get it?

You do not know what a citizen is? Are you channeling Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson?

If you are referring only to United States documents, we have to go back to 1776 to determine what the meaning of the word is is. The same goes for the whole dictionary. No words appeared in official United States documents before there was a United States.

The term citizen predates 1776 by centuries. Jefferson was an eminent lawyer. Jefferson could have gotten the word citizen out of any dictionary.

The know who is a citizen of the United States today, one needs to consult current United States citizenship law. The 14th Amendment covers birth citizenship of all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Federal statute law at the time of birth covers the birth citizenship of all persons born outside the territory or jurisdiction of the United States.

Naturalization of aliens is controlled by Federal statute law.

If you have an issue with the 14th Amendment or Federal statute law, you should write a sternly worded letter to your representatives in Congress.

If you have an issue with Wong Kim Ark and other affirming court opinions, you should initiate a case to be litigated. The thread author litigated his case, had it thrown out, and was ordered to pay the litigation costs of the other side. The law is the law. Even if you disagree with it, it is the law. Even if you have absolute proof it is wrong, it is the law until it is changed or struck down by a court of law.