At this time in History, the terms were virtually synonymous. At that time period very few people could be native born but not natural born. The overlap was nearly 100%. (Except for slaves and Indians which is the GLARING discrepancy in your theory.)And just where did the Constitution or a law change the definitions? Nowhere. Native born means born on the soil (usual exceptions). Natural born - following common law, which we do - means the same. As for slaves and Indians, we've discussed this before. Slaves were a compromise the Founders had to make, and as "property" were not considered citizens at all. Indians were held in a different category, akin to being a foreign nation. If you look in the debates over the 14th amendment, you will see this - and I know I have shown you the quotes in the past.
When Tucker was using the term "native" he was very likely using it in the same sense as was the Chief Justice of the Supreme court in 1874.
Nice how you are able to read Tucker's mind. Since you don't like to take to heart cases about something else, you surely don't want to rely on Marshall quoting a large section of Vattel when the case wasn't about "natural born" at all, but rather whether goods and ship were rightly seized, and whether the naturalized American citizen merchants were protected from this, living in the country of the enemy.
And just where did the Constitution or a law change the definitions? Nowhere. Native born means born on the soil (usual exceptions). Natural born - following common law, which we do - means the same. The Common law required that you must be born of Parents who were under the ACTUAL OBEDIENCE of the King. I've got TWO references to that from law books of the time. Even Blackstone's says that if you read through it enough. Not even the British laws go as far as you seem to wish we did.
As for slaves and Indians, we've discussed this before. Slaves were a compromise the Founders had to make, and as "property" were not considered citizens at all. Indians were held in a different category, akin to being a foreign nation. If you look in the debates over the 14th amendment, you will see this - and I know I have shown you the quotes in the past.
You keep repeating that Indians were a foreign nation while at the same time arguing that citizens of foreign nations who gave birth on our soil created American citizen children. How can foreigners give birth on our soil to create citizens, when Indians (whom you keep insisting were the same as Foreigners) cannot? Can you not see how your argument contradicts itself?
Nice how you are able to read Tucker's mind.
Not mind reading, just a recognition that people used the terms interchangeably in those days.
Since you don't like to take to heart cases about something else, you surely don't want to rely on Marshall quoting a large section of Vattel when the case wasn't about "natural born" at all, but rather whether goods and ship were rightly seized, and whether the naturalized American citizen merchants were protected from this, living in the country of the enemy.
When a man points to a treatises of law and says that these are the standards which apply to citizenship, should we really care what are the particulars of the case? This is no different than saying that in a search and seizure case, we should look at the 4th Amendment.
Notice he is NOT pointing to Blackstone, or any other reference on English Common law.
The other day I had a thought regarding this issue. A nation is very much like a family. Take the Cartwrights (of Bonanza fame) for example. Hoss and little Joe are "natural born members" of the family. They can proudly wear the Cartwright name with no objections for they are
of the family.
Now if the Cartwright family adopted a child, that child could also use the Cartwright name because he had been "naturalized." He was officially recognized as part of the family and he and his children can thereafter claim the Cartwright name and inheritance.
Now suppose someone sneaks into their barn and has a child, and thereafter attempts to claim that the child is also a Cartwright. Should the Cartwrights or their Neighbors recognize this claim?
It is odd that some people can see how silly is the idea when applied to a family, but consider it quite sensible when applied to a nation.