I know you disagree. But since your opinion (which is all that it is) goes against virtually every authority throughout the entirety of United States history, including people who were close to the Founding Fathers, such as William Rawle, your opinion just doesn't count for very much.
William Rawle, wasn't he that London trained son of the British Loyalist Mayor of Philadelphia during the Revolutionary war?
Do you mean to tell me that a guy who was on the OTHER SIDE during the war, and trained in British Law might have a BRITISH understanding of the Law? Heaven forfend!
Yeah, you'll have to do better than that. I would be embarrassed to base my argument on a British trained Son of British Loyalist who was on the other side during the War of Independence.
As you know, two Supreme Court Justices (Chief Justice Marshall and Justice Washington) absolutely crush Rawle's allegations in the case of:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Chief Justice Marshall
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
Supreme Court Justice Washington:
1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.