Justice Story, concurring opinion, “Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor,” 3 Pet. 99, 155,164. (1830)
“The 5th section of the 2d article provides, “that no person except a natural born citizen,” shall become president. A plain acknowledgment, that a man may become a citizen by birth, and that he may be born such.”
Hope this helps.
Interesting case, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/99/case.html
The facts disclosed in this case, then, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that it was the fixed determination of Charles Inglis the father, at the declaration of independence, to adhere to his native allegiance. And John Inglis the son must be deemed to have followed the condition of his father, and the character of a British subject attached to and fastened on him also, which he has never attempted to throw off by any act disaffirming the choice made for him by his father...
It cannot, I presume, be denied but that allegiance may be dissolved by the mutual consent of the government and its citizens or subjects. The government may release the governed from their allegiance. This is even the British doctrine in the case of Doe v. Acklam, before referred to.
It seems that Justice Thompson affirmed the US law of citizenship through descent, not soil in the DECIDING OPINION. He clearly states that the child FOLLOWED the CONDITION of the FATHER! The words of the LAW OF NATIONS of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel, Locke, etc that are spoken of by the framers during the debates when discussin the citizens & the states being in a state of nature.
Justice Story: Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth. If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject...Vattel considers the general doctrine to be that children generally acquire the national character of their parents, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 19. sec. 212, 219, and it is certain, both by the common law and the statute law of England, that the demandant would be deemed a British subject. .