Subjective loyalties?? A primary allegiance is NOT a subjective loyalty.
When Madison says "I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community;" the only way that such persons are members is through their parents. That's how one has a 'right of birth.' It's why Madison said:
Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.Clearly, independence changed to whom loyalty and citizenship ran because the identity of the sovereign changed, but it did not change the rules that determined citizenship itself.
Nonsense. If the King of England agreed with this, there wouldn't have been a war.
Did people who were previously citizens of Massachusetts because they were born there somehow shift to being a non-citizen after independence?
What???? No one said anyone becomes a "non-citizen." Way to twist the argument.
In fact, the Constitution doesn't define citizenship at all, and the only law in effect in the Colonies that could reasonably be assumed to define citizenship was the exact same pure birthright citizenship to which all the colonists had been subject under English law. It was all they knew.
English law wasn't all they knew. Plenty of evidence has shown that the founders used the law of nations, which is actually referenced in the Constitution.
But again what Madison or any other Framer may have held for an opinion isn't relevant.
Bwaahhhhh????? It was certainly relevant to the Supreme Court when it defined NBC:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Actually, in that context, that's exactly what it was. Madison was not making a citizenship argument. He was making a moral argument about where the loyalty of colonists should lie. But he certainly wasn't arguing that the colonists were not lawful citizens of England prior to them opting out via the Declaration.
But this criticism really pales to the other blatant misrepresention in your post:
"When Madison says "I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community;" the only way that such persons are members is through their parents. That's how one has a 'right of birth. It's why Madison said: "Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
Thank you for providing a perfect example of the dishonesty of many people pushing the birther agenda. I bolded your language claiming that Madison was talking about parentage to illustrate how badly you've misrepresented the actual quote in question. The full quote, that you omitted, is as follows, and I will bold Madison's critical language that you deliberately omitted:
"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the firstsettlers of that, colony.
So as you can see, when you look at the full quote, it is apparent that the reference to his ancestors being there for so long was illustrative of that fact he was clearly born in that place. Because, as Madison said, it is place of birth, NOT PARENTAGE, "is what applies in the United States."
Here is the source for any who care to check it for themselves:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/79655719/James-Madison-on-Contested-Election-Citizenship-And-Birthright-22-May-1789-House-of-Representatives
That being said, if you were just repeating this quote and argument because it appeared somewhere else, and were not aware of the other language, then you are simply misinformed, and it is someone else who is deliberately misleading people. But if you were aware of the entire quote, and deliberately misled people by omitting the rest of the paragraph, that is pretty lousy.