It can make someone a citizen. It cannot make them a natural citizen.
The application of "natural born" can vary depending on what law system you follow: the "jus soli" from the English common law or the "jus sanguinis" of civil law.
This is correct. The English had their own version of "natural law" in which it was natural to be ruled by a King who was appointed by God to rule over everyone.
But we forked away from that version to the one that said men had a right to rule themselves.
The English parliament had numerous instances of statutorily defining certain classes of subjects as "natural born".
"Subjects."
I dare say you will have a hard time finding a contemporary account where Parliament declared anyone a "citizen." In the English of the day, "citizen" meant "denizen of a city." Someone who lived in a city.
Their "natural law" dealt solely with "subjects" who were required to have perpetual allegiance to the King.
Our forking over to "citizen" meant we were going Republican, not Monarchist.
You literally misattributed a page from one book to another, for starters.
Disagree. I reject the claims that that book was not based on the report of the Judges. That is just straw grasping from those of you who want to ignore the significance of the fact that the author cited the judges as the source of his information contained in his book.
I've seen so many sources and citations thrown your way over these past months on various threads that I can only conclude that you must be very forgetful (to be charitable).
If it references something after 1868, I automatically discard it and don't bother looking at it.
But to be frank, your reliance on Vattel's understanding from a treatise on international law is outweighed by that which supports common law understanding
Oh, another liberal Obama voting herd animal telling me the herd position is correct. No thanks.
(your incorrect claim that Rawle is the only source of such an understanding notwithstanding):
Never said he was the only one. Said he was the most influential. He had the greatest effect.
...suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution.
Thomas Jefferson deliberately changed the word "subject" into "citizen" in writing the Declaration of Independence. That was 1776. So yes, the intent to go from Subject to Citizen was inherent in the founding itself.
The guy who wrote that above, seemingly is unaware of this fact.
I would respond to more of your quotes, but because it is an image, it is difficult to quote, so I do not feel so inclined to retype everything to which I would like to respond.
I will say that using the English law version does not solve the loyalty problem that was the entire reason for the Framers insisting on a protection against foreign influence in the first place!
Using the Vattel version *DOES* solve the loyalty problem.
I refer you to Zephaniah Swift's 1795 treatise cited in post #39: "The common law of England is obligatory in this state by immemorial usage, and consent, so far as it corresponds with our circumstances and situation. As we have no treatise upon our laws, we are under the necessity of becoming acquainted with the English code for the purpose of understanding our own. The operation of the English common law, is ascertained by no general rule, and is bounded by no known line: it can be learned only from the decisions of our courts. A common law peculiar to ourselves, resulting from our local circumstances, has been established by the decision of our courts; but has never been committed to writing."
That we ejected the monarchal rule of England in favor of a constitutional republic in no way implies nor necessitates that the common law system in use (along with how terms were understood) was likewise rejected.
If it references something after 1868, I automatically discard it and don't bother looking at it.
So in other words, you would discard American legal/judicial precedent and commentary that's been around for the majority of our country's existence. (This would, naturally, render you unable to use the arguments of anyone after 1868 that is arguing in favor of a "natural born citizen" definition that fits your desires.)
What an unserious retort.
Oh, another liberal Obama voting herd animal telling me the herd position is correct. No thanks.
And your evidence that the author, Michael D. Ramsey, is a "liberal Obama voting herd animal" is...what, exactly?
Ramsey was a clerk for Justice Scalia, is an editor and contributor to the Originalism Blog, and — from the following 2016 symposium about Scalia from 'Law & Liberty' — is quoted as saying: "Scalia’s originalism did not fully prevail (or, more optimistically, has not yet prevailed). Sometimes it did, at the Court, as in Heller. Sometimes it influenced the Court’s majority, even in opinions that were not fully originalist. Often he was in dissent, but less often was he alone. The originalist position in Noel Canning (2014) got four votes, not one. Lower courts began producing originalist opinions. Lawyers included originalist arguments in their briefs. Law professors and commentators began arguing over it. His achievement—I think an irreversible achievement—was to make people think about originalism. Today no one can teach or study constitutional law without thinking about originalism. We can’t talk about new Supreme Court appointments without talking about originalism. No one can litigate a constitutional case without examining the Constitution’s original meaning. We take that for granted now. It’s important to remember how much that has changed in 30 years, and how much of that is owed to one man."
Do such laudatory words of Scalia and his originalism sound like they came from a "liberal Obama voting herd animal" to you? (And besides, even if they did, they would not make the pre-1868 sources he cites in that essay in favor of his argument disappear.)
Thomas Jefferson deliberately changed the word "subject" into "citizen" in writing the Declaration of Independence. That was 1776. So yes, the intent to go from Subject to Citizen was inherent in the founding itself. The guy who wrote that above, seemingly is unaware of this fact.
You miss the point of the whole paragraph, then: namely, that 'natural born subjects' and 'natural born citizens' were used interchangeably by many in the early years of America, insofar as legislative, judicial, or legal purposes are concerned.
To quote from Ramsey's essay in question: "Second, there is evidence that the founding generation, at least in some instances, used “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” interchangeably. For example, Massachusetts continued the English practice of legislative acts naturalizing particular named individuals. These acts recited that the naturalized individuals would have all the rights of (in some cases) “natural born subjects” of the state and (in others) “natural born citizens.” As far as the historical record reflects, no difference was intended; the phrases appear to be used interchangeably to convey the same meaning. In particular, the state Acts referred to “natural born subjects” during the Confederation period immediately before and during the drafting and ratifying process, suggesting that revolutionary Americans did not change their terminology from citizen to subject in the wake of the Revolution."
That Jefferson used "citizen" in the Declaration instead of "subject" does not undermine this point whatsoever.
I will say that using the English law version does not solve the loyalty problem that was the entire reason for the Framers insisting on a protection against foreign influence in the first place! Using the Vattel version *DOES* solve the loyalty problem
Using Vattel's definition of citizenship would have rendered numerous children of immigrants (not yet naturalized) in the early years of America into non-citizens, for one thing.
But I digress: the issue is that, despite your professed preference for Vattel, the historical record (insofar as America is concerned) is overwhelmingly in favor of "jus soli" overriding "jus sanguinis" in terms of determining who is and is not a citizen of this country. You may not like it (I certainly don't; I personally prefer it!), but history is against our preferences.
Hence why I think your attempts at arguing 'no, the judicial, legal, and common law precedents going back over two centuries are all wrong!' is an exercise in futility.
If you want Vattel's understanding of "natural born citizen" to take hold in America, you will need a constitutional amendment to codify it as thus. That's the bottom line.