English common law did not recognize the term "citizen" as national membership. It recognized it as meaning "resident of a city."
The meaning of the word as membership in a nation does not derive from English common law or even English culture. The proper word for English is "subject", and English common law is all over that.
You are trying to jam "natural born" onto "citizen" as if they came from the same origin. "Citizen" appears to come from Switzerland. It does not appear to come from England.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
Jus soli. The law of the place of one's birth, as contrasted with jus sanguinis, the law of the place of one's descent or parentage. The principle that a person's ctizenship is determined by place of birth rather than by the citizenship of one's perents. It is of feudal origin.
I'm having difficulty following you. You repeatedly tell me that American citizenship has nothing to do with English Common law, but you keep citing English Common law in support of your claim that American citizenship is jus soli.
I also don't see you addressing the American understanding of the word "citizen" from 1776 to 1787.
The Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103) (jus sanguinis)
What happened in 1790 doesn't really bear on it. Also, the term "natural born" was removed in the subsequent act, and it appears it's inclusion in the 1790 act was an error.
If you have a legal argument to pitch, pitch it. As it stands, you are just playing trivia.
I have been trying to do so, but I think we need to get this origin of the word "citizen" straightened out before I try to present my legal argument.
I will say my legal argument is going to derive from William Lewis of Pennsylvania. He was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature when the US Constitution was ratified by Pennsylvania, and he ought to have known what was meant by "natural born citizen" in the context of the Framer's intent.
I'm sure others knew as well, but very little in the way of evidence as to it's meaning has descended from others.
William Rawle is the most commonly cited origin for jus soli interpretation of American citizenship, but Rawle was not a member of the Constitutional convention nor a member of a ratifying legislature.
It is my understanding he was in Philadelphia in 1787 and would converse with framers in the evenings when they went out to the taverns, but he had no official role in the Convention or in ratification.
I believe I have a pretty good case to demonstrate Rawle was wrong about his claims regarding American Citizenship and knew he was wrong when he wrote "A View of the Constitution."
You are trying to jam "natural born" onto "citizen" as if they came from the same origin. "Citizen" appears to come from Switzerland. It does not appear to come from England.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/significance-of-citizenship-in-ancient-greece.html
Citizenship in ancient Greece.Greek Society
Let's start at the beginning. How did the ancient Greeks start talking about citizenship? Well, it's important to remember that in the ancient world, there was no single nation or kingdom called Greece. Instead, there were several different urban centers where people congregated for safety and economic opportunities. As the Greeks engaged in Mediterranean trade, these cities grew in size and wealth, forming their own governments and becoming essentially miniature nations of their own, which we call city-states. The Greeks called each city a polis. Your polis was more than just your home; it was the basis of you identity. If someone asked who you were, you might say Athenian, Spartan, or Corinthian, whatever your polis was. Well, scholars and politicians alike decided that there needed to be a way to distinguish the true members of a polis from foreigners. Thus, the concept of the citizen was born. Citizenship Rights
Being recognized as a citizen meant that you were a true inhabitant of the polis, that you legally belonged. It also meant that you had certain political rights. This was very important to the Greeks from early on. Since citizens were seen as legally belonging, they were essentially equals, which meant that they deserved certain rights. In particular, the government of the city was supposed to protect the interests of the citizens. Any government that didn't was tyrannical, something that Greeks saw themselves as too civilized to tolerate. But how exactly were these city-state governments supposed to consider the opinions of citizens? Well, this is where the concept of democracy was developed - a system of government in which the members all have a say in politics.
Take a mulligan on that Swiss thing.
I do not give a crap where the term came from. It exists in United States law and the United States did NOT adopt the English common law (the body of old court decisions and precedents).
With over two centuries of United States jurisprudence to choose from, you got nothing. You Biden over and over about one foreign belief or another, but you act as if United States law has the plague. United States citizenship determinations are made EXCLUSIVELY upon United States law. United States nationality and citizenship law are written law. The common law has no application to anything, anywhere, in the face of written law.
I also don't see you addressing the American understanding of the word "citizen" from 1776 to 1787.
Observe the evolution of the term natural born subject in the Vermont constitutions of 1777, 1786, and 1793 to the term natural born citizen in the 1828 Amendment to the Vermont Constitution of 1828.
[Vermont Const. 1777]
Section XXXVIII. 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 years residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and intitled 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.[Vermont Const. 1786]
XXXVI. Every person 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 Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Treasurer, Counsellor, or Representative in Assembly, until after two years' residence.[Vermont Const. 1793]
SEC 39. Every person 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 rights of a natural-born subject of this State, except that he shall not be capable of being elected governor, lieutenant-governor, treasurer, councillor, or representative in assembly, until after two years' residence.[Vermont Const. Amdt. 1828]
ARTICLE I. No person, who is not already a freeman of this State, shall be entitled to exercise the privilege of a freeman, unless he be a natural-born citizen of this or some one of the United States, or until he shall have been naturalized agreeably to the acts of Congress.
From 1777 to 1828, they did not share in your befuddlement.
If you have a legal argument to pitch, pitch it. As it stands, you are just playing trivia.I have been trying to do so, but I think we need to get this origin of the word "citizen" straightened out before I try to present my legal argument.
If you have been trying to make any legal argument at all, you have failed. I can identify no such argument having been made. None is presented here.
In State v. Manuel (1838) the Court stated,
The term "citizen" as understoood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people—and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
Lynch v. Clarke (1844)
I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.
Webster's Dictionary, 1828
SUBJECT, noun [Latin]1. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. The natives of the United States, and naturalized foreigners, are subjects of the federal government. Men in free governments, are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens, they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects, they are bound to obey the laws.
https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000203/html/am203--378.html
17 Maryland Laws 378 (1884)
CHAP. XII.An ACT to naturalize major-general the marquis de la Fayette and his heirs male for ever.
WHEREAS the general assembly of Maryland, anxious to perpetuate a name dear to the state, and to recognize the marquis de la Fayette for one of its citizens, who, at the age of nineteen, left his native country, and risked his life in the late revolution; who, on his joining the American army, after being appointed by congress to the rank of major-general, disinterestedly refused the usual rewards of command, and sought only to deserve what he attained, the character of patriot and soldier; who, when appointed to conduct an incursion into Canada, called forth by his prudence and extraordinary discretion the approbation of congress; who, at the head of an army in Virginia, baffled the manœuvres of a distinguished general, and excited the admiration of the oldest commanders; who early attracted the notice and obtained the friendship of the illustrious general Washington; and who laboured and succeeded in raising the honour and the name of the United States of America: Therefore,
II. Be it enacted, by the general assembly of Maryland, That the marquis de la Fayette, and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges.
Damn. French Lafayette was made a natural born citizen before the Constitution was Framed or adopted. There just ain't no telling what a sovereign state might do. And, as Maryland did this before the Constitution....
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President...."
Lafayette was a citizen, nay a natural born citizen, before the adoption of the Constitution. How did those turtles know to use that exact phrase?
William Rawle is the most commonly cited origin for jus soli interpretation of American citizenship, but Rawle was not a member of the Constitutional convention nor a member of a ratifying legislature.
The 14th Amendment citizenship clause is an example of jus soli, citizenship by place of birth. It is cited a great deal more than William Rawle. It is the organic law of the United States.
Also Wong Kim Ark, the leading Supreme Court precedent. At 169 U.S. 693
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.
It is the law of the land, expressly stated as such.
I will say my legal argument is going to derive from William Lewis of Pennsylvania. He was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature when the US Constitution was ratified by Pennsylvania, and he ought to have known what was meant by "natural born citizen" in the context of the Framer's intent.
As a legal argument, it goes as far as a motion to dismiss for improper argument. A Court may not even consider an argument on such a basis. Whoever Lewis was, nobody ratified his opinion.
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.