Your “requirement” that a child be born on US Soil is incorrect. While being born on US soil does grant US citizenship, it is not a requirement.
I am very aware of the difference between Natural Born (citizen by birth) and Naturalization (process of granting citizenship). There is only ONE time Congress has used the term “natural born citizen”. It is in the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1st Congress 2nd Session).
In specific, it says”
“... And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:...”
That law was signed by none other than George Washington and shows that the founding fathers did not require a US Citizen be born on US soil, US possession or US Jurisdiction. A child born from a US Citizen (regardless of where) at the time of there birth confers citizenship at birth if the parent(s) meet the requirements established by the laws of the US at the time of that birth.
Therefore, your assertion that the founding fathers used English Common Laws is demonstratively incorrect.
Once again I never said a child was required to be born on US soil.
Anyone that can read can see for themselves that what I wrote is that the requirement applied to US Soil and to its possessions and this is how it is written into policy today.
So I am not sure why you are arguing unless you are confusing me with someone else.
The Naturalization Act Of 1790 was repealed in 1795. Did you know this?