Yes, natural law is both logical and simple.
The natural law that gave rise to "natural born subject" as well as the later American form "natural born citizen" was simple, and derived from the Bible.
The Bible said that people should be subject to authorities that God had put in place.
England became a Christian country, and adopted this philosophy into their law, extending it slightly to the very logical conclusion that if a person was born into a realm, then he was to be a subject OF that realm, and of the governing authority over it.
Very simple.
And THAT is where we got "natural born subject" (which became "natural born citizen" in the United States), and THAT is why it never mattered whether a person's parents were subjects or citizens or not. Just as long as they themselves were there in obedience to that authority. And if they were there as aliens in amity, with the permission of the King and under his protection, then their children, born in the realm, were natural born subjects OF the realm.
James Madison was the man who wrote the U.S.Constitution, and during his Presidency he had a very definite belief in what exactly constituted a U.S. citizen: a person born of U.S. citizen parents was therefore a citizen, and just the fact of being born in one of the original thirteen colonies didn’t equal citizenship. This was the definition, in fact, written into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Sigh.
Madison said that when it came to allegiance (the kind of allegiance that created citizenship) there were two ways to go: place of birth, or parentage. He said that PLACE OF BIRTH was the MORE CERTAIN of the two, and that it was WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
The naturalization of children born to U.S. citizens overseas was dealt with by the very first U.S. congress in 1790. Unfortunately, they got it wrong!
Yes, our prominent early leaders were all a bunch of goofups, weren't they? I seem to hear this pretty regularly from birthers. Like when DL attacked William Rawle.
It took the 14th Amendment AND the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision to cement in place the idea that a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States could be a United States citizen at birth no matter the parent’s citizenship.Only in the case of blacks. By the time of US v Wong Kim Ark, the government had begun to wander from its earlier principles, and the Wong Kim Ark decision brought it back to the way Founders and Framers set things up.
The natural law that gave rise to "natural born subject" as well as the later American form "natural born citizen" was simple, and derived from the Bible.
The Bible said that people should be subject to authorities that God had put in place.
If this were true, then the bible would have no need to go into all the "begats" demonstrating who begat who. All it need say was that so and so was born in Judea, but yet it insist on detailing all the begats for some reason.
“These are the sons of Zilpah, whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter, and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls. These are the sons of Rachel, which were born to Jacob: all the souls were fourteen. These are the sons of Bilhah, which Laban gave to Rachel his daughter, and she bare these unto Jacob: all the souls were seven”
"Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David."David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife, Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Mannasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
You aren't Jewish because you were born in Judea, you are Jewish because you were born to a Jewish Mother. (Matrilineal)
England became a Christian country, and adopted this philosophy into their law, extending it slightly to the very logical conclusion that if a person was born into a realm, then he was to be a subject OF that realm, and of the governing authority over it.
England followed Roman law until it was changed. The usage of birthplace as the deciding factor occurred as a result of a succession issue involving James I. (James VI Under Scottish succession.) Had they not come to this ruling, (Calvin's Case) It would not have been possible for James I to take the throne of England because he was born to Scottish Parents rather than English parents. If James I couldn't take the throne, then the United Kingdom would not have become United. There was a great desire to see the Kingdom United under James I, so they just fudged it. English and American law has been screwed up ever since. (and you guys thought this was based on some "natural" principle or something.) :)
I will not dispute that he said that, but if what he said was true, then there was no need for him to say anything else. The fact that he then went on to describe how Mr. Smith's family was among the earliest settlers, and in every other way appeal to Mr. Smith's Jus Sanguinus bonifieds, indicate that Madison himself did not really regard that aspect (birth in South Carolina) as the deciding factor. Again, if that was all it took, then no further discussion was necessary. The existence of subsequent discussion demonstrates the principle to be false.