I’ve been trying off and on to locate some colonial statutes on citizenship but have had no luck. Do you know of any sites? I’ve searched but came up empty.
What I have read about the subject has been that English common law was the source of our citizenship laws.
If there’s ever a SCOTUS case, your argument would require that you produce evidence. So might as well get it now, right?
Generally speaking (meaning discounting the early and special case exceptions), you would not expect to find American Colonial statutes concerning the establishment of native born citizenship in the late 18th Century, because it was already established as an English common-law status. Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736), p. 77.
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (originally published 1765-1769)
The English common-law was not the SOLE nor even predominant source of the citizenship laws of the United States, contrary to some utterly erroneous Supreme Court (SCOTUS) holdings and U.S. Congressional testimonies. Proof of that fact can be found by simply reading those first citizenship laws.
After the Declaration of Independence on 4 July 1776, each State began to enact its own legislation regarding citizenship laws. Some states enacted statutes to replace the former English common-laws which followed the principle of jus solis as before in some regards and not in others. Other States such as the State of Virginia enacted statutes using a mixture of jus sanguannis, jus soli, and other laws and customs typical in other regions of Europe. At the time of adoption of the Constitution, the Federal Government was not responsible for establishing uniform laws of citizenship and naturalization, because the States had reserved those powers of legislation for themselves.
Given the wide differences in citizenship laws enacted among the early States, you can see how any claims that the singular source of the citizenship laws of the United States was the immediately preceding English common-law during the period of Colonial America is simply not possible nor true. In fact, the Founding Fathers used Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19; some elements of English common-law, and an assortment of other European citizenship laws and legal treatises.
In the final analysis, the misconception regarding the role of English common-law in establishing U.S. citizenship laws and the natural born citizen phrase in the Constitution has led people astray in their search for the definition of the term. By ignoring the fact that most nations other than England-Britain often did not always use the place of birth or jus soli to claim the citizenship nor allegiance of a person born of foreign parents in their domains, these people have overlooked the obvious fact the Founding Fathers were referring to a person’s allegiance at birth and how the allegiance was NOT always determined by place of birth in Europe, the rest of the World, or the United States.
One of the most perplexing puzzles people have faced when trying to determine the intended definition of the natural born citizens phrase used in the Constitution versus the natural born subject phrase used in the English common-law are the outright conflicts and inconsistencies encountered in particular cases when you try to define a natural born citizen soley by place of birth. Such a construction is impossible to reconcile with the fact the phrase was recommended for inclusion in the Constitution by John Jay, George Washington, and the other Founding Fathers for the explicit purpose of excluding any person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign.
On the other hand, the construction makes perfect sense when you read it as the Founding Fathers so easily understood it as meaning the natural born allegiance of a person. The Founding Fathers were concerned with a person’s allegiance in the case of a naturalized citizen, and they were concerned with natural born allegiance of person born with allegiance only to the United States and without allegiance to any foreign sovereign. Since some foreign nations granted citizenship by jus sanguinnis, a person born in one of the United States could be born in the United States owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign in accordance with the Law of Nations.
In the era before the existence of dual citizenship, the child of a foreign father was born with allegiance only to the foreign sovereign of the father’s nation. In the era since the existence of dual citizenship, the child of a foreign father was born with divided allegiance to the foreign sovereign of the father’s nation when their laws allowed and allegiance to the United States.
Ultimately, the natural born citizen phrase is about having a natural born allegiance to the United States, just as the oath of allegiance is about transferring allegiance and conferring naturalized citizenship on a person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign. It’s all about allegiance at birth. The Founding Fathers deliberately excluded a person born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth from ever being eligible to the Office of the President or Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
See how the phrase was used in America in the late 18th Century and early 19th Century at John Greschak’s website: What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States? Note how allegiance is the common element used in virtually every variant form of the phrases natural born citizen, free citizen, free born citizen, naturalized citizen, etc. In other words, the Constitution’s natural born citizen is a person who has a natural born allegiance only to the United States of America.