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.
I'm trying not to laugh out loud, but this is simply ridiculous.
I think the merit of the question is now to be decided, whether the gentleman is eligible to a seat in this house or not, but it will depend on the decision of a previous question, whether he has been seven years a citizen of the United-States or not.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."
Madison says place of birth is ONE criterion, not that it's the ONLY criterion. And you are ignoring that he IMMEDIATELY follows his comment by talking about Smith's birthright through his ancestors. Smith was being challenged because he was born a British subject, which would be based on place of birth, same as what you want to believe Madison was arguing. Madison had to explain there were differing levels of allegiances in determining citizenship AND he specifically rejects the British common law argument by saying:
In order to become a member of the British empire, where birth has now endowed the person with that privilege, he must be naturalized by an act of parliament.
Going by what YOU want to believe, Smith should be a natural-born British subject at birth, but Madison argues that a naturalization law would have been required to do that because the King could only make those born in the colonies to be denizens, which is neither an alien nor a subject.