“defined the two categories of “born citizen” and “naturalized citizen” in a 1790 law.”
The 1790 law was so flawed that in 1795 it was repealed and replaced....”But you knew that, too, didn’t you?” They passed it, then they read it. and then they had to repeal it. Lolololol.....
“U.S. law doesn’t subscribe to Vattel, it follows British Common Law.”
I beg to differ. Reread the Constitution’s Preamble where it states the Constitution is based on Natural Law... De Vattel, Locke, Aquinas, et al.
Common law is law based on Custom. US Law is based on Statute. Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was used in US Law Schools as a textbook until the 1880s. You are mis-informed.
It is silly to say that the US adopted the laws of a country that it found to be unjust, and had just successfully rebelled against in order to establish a new country.
The Founders used 2 texts in writing the Constitution. Blackstone’s Common Law which showed where they had come from, and Vattel’s “Law of Nations” to see where they wanted to go. Again reread the Constitution’s Preamble......
Under British Common Law the People are Subjects....
Under US Law the People are Citizens.
Understanding the difference between Subjects and Citizens is key to understanding the fallacy of “.... it follows British Common Law.”
Under US Law the People are Citizens.
You are correct. But you're missing the point...barely.
The U.S. chose to define its citizens the same way Britain defined its subjects.
Britain defined a British subject as one born of a British father...anywhere in the world. Managing a far-lung empire required British citizens to be posted all around the globe. It was desirable that their children be born British. Accordingly, a British child born in In-jah was just as British as a British child born in Cornwall.
And we've determined citizenship in the same way as Britain has determined its subjects.
By the way, the 1795 citizenship law maintains the same two classifications of citizen. But you knew that...