[DiogenesLamp]

I do not see Leo’s direct conclusion(s) and find myself left to draw my own. Is this to suppose an indirect inference into the intent of the Federalist Papers rendering “…British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States” invalid?

It is to point out that the rules for being considered a citizen of a State are not necessarily the same as those required to be a Federal citizen.

State citizens could be created by Jus Soli,(as in Virginia after 1792. Prior to 1792, they had to be Jus Sanguinus to be a citizen of Virginia. New York passed a law in 1845 requiring Jus Sanguinus to be a citizen.) but apparently Jus Sanguinus (or naturalization) is required for possessing Federal Citizenship.

[edge919]

This is a simple point of logic that should help people understand why the founders used natural-born citizen for the presidential requirement. They wanted a universal definition that was not subject (pardon the pun) to the whims of different state laws, and also not dependent on British common law, which they needed to reject in order to legally declare themselves to be U.S. citizens.

Vattel gave a very clear definition of natural citizenship that they would have been familiar with, plus they translated the French word "naturel" (as used by Vattel) as "natural-born" ... meaning they would have read his principles on naturel citizens as "natural-born citizens" ... those person who are born in the country to citizen parents. It is a definition for which there is no doubt as the Supreme Court clearly stated nearly 100 years later.

[bksanders]

Thx DL - Isn't "…but apparently Jus Sanguinus (or naturalization) is required for possessing Federal Citizenship" the "whole argument" in question?
Does this fortify the argument by drawing the "intended" and by extrapolation the required or mandated differentiation between States Citizens and National Citizens?
I'm not trying to be a pinhead here it's just that the language often confounds me.
I wish to be on firm footing with my arguments.
You Go Leo!