[DiogenesLamp]

Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens.

Incorrect. The English common law defines "Subjects" not "citizens." Citizen isn't even an English word that meant the same thing at the time. "Citizen" in 1760s English meant "City dweller." It did not mean "Member of a nation" back then. (Except in Switzerland, where it did since the 1300s.)

The deliberate choice of the word "Citizen" when "Subject" was the normal and more common term, meant they were rejecting English law on the matter, the same as they rejected it regarding the establishment of a state religion, Debtor's prison and "Corruption of blood."

All English laws that were anathema to the natural law foundation of American Independence were rejected, and the jus soli foundation of English subjectude was among them.

The English made everyone born on their soil owe allegiance to their King as a means of making them his soldiers to defend the crown. It was forcible patriation, and it did indeed force children born to foreign parents into the English army and navy.

Jus Soli common law is not for the benefit of the people, but instead was solely for the benefit of the crown.

Here is a critique of the practice from a Scottish Presbyterian minister in the early 1800s.

[Verginius Rufus]

My grandfather was born a subject of Kaiser Franz Joseph. As a teenager he emigrated to a British colony and became a naturalized British subject, but when he went home to visit his father the Austrian authorities called him up for a draft physical—they did not recognize his change of citizenship. Fortunately they put him in a category to be drafted only in the case of war, and he had the good sense to move to the US before WWI broke out (I have his WWI US draft card). I don’t think the British authorities tried to track him down—they probably had no idea where he was.