Rawle’s treatise is about the US Constitution and federal citizenship and therefore is based on all of the states. Roberts’ book is only about Pennsylvania law.
Rawle’s explanation included the widest understanding of all the states as most had incorporated the English Common Law in their state constitutions or by reception statutes.
New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts incorporated the Common law directly into their Constitutions. Other states used reception laws to make the Common law. Part of their legal structure.
For example, Virginia’s reception law of 1776 had the following section;
“ And be it further ordained, That the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the first, and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, together with the several acts of the General Assembly of this colony now in force, so far as the same may consist with several ordinances, declarations, and resolutions of the General Convention, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as in full force, until the same shall be altered by the legislative power of this colony.”
The 1779 citizenship law (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) is based on this reception act - “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth … shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”
The Pennsylvania Charter of 1681 has the following provision,
“That the said Lawes bee consonant to reason, and bee not repugnant or contrarie, but as neare as conveniently may bee agreeable to the Lawes and Statutes, and rights of this Our Kingdome of England”
So Pennsylvania could make their own laws as long as they weren’t “repugnant or contrarie” to English law.
This was followed by the Constitution of 1776 which had this English legal term
“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”
[footnote: in describing this part of the 1777 constitution, Judge Roberts replaces the phrase “natural born subjects” with “natural born citizens”]
Pennsylvania reception law of January, 1777 has the following section:
“ (1.) Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the l4th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th 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 the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted. (2.) Provided always, that so much of every law or act of general assembly of the province aforesaid, . . . as declares, orders, directs or commands any matter or thing repugnant to, against, or inconsistent with the constitution of this commonwealth, is hereby declared not to be revived, but shall be null and void, and of no force or effect; and so much of the statute laws of England aforesaid relating to felonies, as takes notice of or relates to treason or misprision of treason, or directs the style of the process in any case whatsoever, shall be, and is hereby declared, of no force or effect, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding.”
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Acts_of_the_General_Assembly_of_the/Ndw1AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Each+and+every+one+of+the+laws+or+acts+of+general+assembly,+that+were+in+force+and+binding+on+the+inhabitants+of+the+said+province+on+the+l4th+day+of+May+last,+shall+be+in+force+and+binding+on+the+inhabitants+of+this+state&pg=PA3&printsec=frontcover
The acceptance of the English Common Law by the Pennsylvania Charter was recognized by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the 1810 case of Kirk v Dean. Chief Justice Tilghman wrote, “Although the charter of Pennsylvania extended the common law of England to this country yet a practice very soon prevailed, and was long continued, for married women to convey not only their right of dower, but their own estates of inheritance, by deed ”
https://cite.case.law/binn/2/341/
Kirk v Dean is a good example of how the colonies could make changes to the common law to suit their situation. No one disputes that ability. But if Pennsylvania made such a change in their citizenship laws from common law to law of nations where is it documented?
George Nicholas (member of the Virginia ratifying Convention) wrote an often cited letter.
“ Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.”
https://archive.org/details/letterfromgeorge00nichrich/page/6/mode/2up
In his dissenting opinion in Shanks v DuPont (1830), Justice Johnson (nominated to the Court by President Jefferson) wrote about Mrs. Shanks,
“It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community…”