He’s talking about expatriation there, something that English Common Law did not allow, at all, for anybody.
Do you just not understand what you’re reading or are you misleading intentionally?
“He’s talking about expatriation there, something that English Common Law did not allow, at all, for anybody.”
There was considerable discussion about whether or not expatriation was allowed in the United States. In fact, there were several cases which discussed the question.
In Talbot v. Jansen, Justice Iredell wrote,
“This involves the great question as to the right of expatriation, upon which so much has been said in this cause. Perhaps it is not necessary it should be explicitly decided on this occasion, but I shall freely express my sentiments on the subject.”
“That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere, much less when he must starve in one country, and may live comfortably in another, are positions which I hold as strongly as any man, and they are such as most nations in the world appear clearly to recognize.”
“The only difference of opinion is as to the proper manner of executing this right.”
“Some hold that it is a natural unalienable right in each individual; that it is a right upon which no act of legislation can lawfully be exercised, inasmuch as a legislature might impose dangerous restraints upon it; and of course it must be left to every man’s will and pleasure to go off when and in what manner he pleases.”
“This opinion is deserving of more deference because it appears to have the sanction of the Constitution of this state, if not of some other states in the Union.”
“I must, however, presume to differ from it, for the following reasons:”
He then cites 5 reasons that “expatriation” is not a natural right but one that must be defined by the legislature.
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/133/case.html
In the Case of Isaac Williams, Chief Justice Ellsworth (a Framer) wrote,
“The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution. The present question is to be decided by two great principles; one is, that all the members of a civil community are bound to each other by compact; the other is, that one of the parties to this compact cannot dissolve it by his own act. The compact between our community and it’s members is, that the community shall protect it’s members, and on the part of the members, that they will at all times be obedient to the laws of the community, and faithful in it’s defence.”
In the case of the United States v. Gillies (1815) Justice Washington wrote,
“I do not mean to moot the question of expatriation, founded on the self will of a citizen, because it is entirely beside the case before the court. It may suffice for the present to say, that I must be more enlightened upon this subject than I have yet been, before I can admit, that a citizen of the United States can throw off his allegiance to his country, without some law authorising him to do so.
It wasn’t until 1868 that the right of expatriation became law in the United States.
BTW, if you reread Justice Iredell’s statement in Talbot v. Jansen, he appears to be saying that citizenship is based on place of birth.
“That a man ought not to be a slave; that he should not be confined against his will to a particular spot because he happened to draw his first breath upon it; that he should not be compelled to continue in a society to which he is accidentally attached, when he can better his situation elsewhere,”
Yes, Vattel believed that the citizen belongs to the all-powerful State and that it is proper for the State to prevent citizens from attempting to escape to another country if the State believes that the citizen's labor is useful to the State.
And, then there's this:
§ 240. Taxes.
If the income of the public property, or of the domain, is not sufficient for the public wants, the state supplies the deficiency by taxes. These ought to be regulated in such a manner, that the citizens may pay their quota in proportion to their abilities, and the advantages they reap from society. . . ." - Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law,Book 1, Chapter 20, § 240
So, where did you think Marx got some of his ideas for communism? To Vattel, citizens were nothing more than useful tools for the State.
Americans will never adopt Vattel's crackpot ideas about citizenship or anything else. Americans believe that, by the grace of God, citizens are free!