Furthermore, you didn't address the point that was made which was drones such as you parse & edit the law to fit your warped view of history. Kent cited A2 and then he went on to differentiate between them, those that were natives which included those not born on US soil, but adhered to the revolution and those born after the revolution. Natural born did not exist until the latter. He did NOT say ‘natives born’, he said ‘natives’ AND ‘born’. He clearly was differentiating between the two.
Kent on Aliens:
The statute of 25 Edw. III. stat. 2., appears to have been made to remove / doubts as to the certainty of the common law on this subject, and it declared, that children thereafter born without the ligeance of the king, whose father and mother, at the time of their birth, were natives, should be entitled to the privileges of native subject, except the children of mothers who should pass the sea without leave of their husbands. The statute of 7 Ann, c. 5, was to the same general effect; but the statute of 4 Geo. II. c. 21., required only that the father should be a natural born subject at the birth of the child, and it applied to all children then born, or thereafter to be born. Under these statutes it has been held, that to entitle a child born abroad to the rights of an English natural born subject, the father must be an English subject; and if the father be an alien, the child cannot inherit to the mother, though she was born under the king's allegiance.
The act of Congress of the 14th of April, 1802, establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, affects the issue of two classes of persons: (1.) By the 4th section, it was declared, that" the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States." This provision appears to apply only to the children of persons naturalized, or specially admitted to citizenship ; and there is colour for the construction, that it may have been intended to be prospective, and to apply as well to the case of persons thereafter to be naturalized, as to those who had previously been naturalized. It applies to all the children of " persons duly naturalized," under the restriction of residence and minority, at the time of the naturalization of the parent. The act applies to the children of persons duly naturalized, but does not explicitly state, whether it was intended to apply only to the case where both the parents were duly naturalized, or whether it would be sufficient for one of them only to be naturalized, in order to confer, as of course, the right of citizens upon the resident children, being under age.
It was decided, that children born in the United States, since the recognition of our independence by Great Britain, of parents born here before that time, and continuing to reside here afterwards, were aliens, and could not inherit lands in England. To entitle a child born out of the allegiance of the crown of England, to be deemed a natural born subject, the father must be a subject at the time of the birth of the child ; and the people of the United States ceased to be subjects in the view of the English law, after the recognition of our independence, on the 3d day of September, 1783.
It is all quite enlightening if you take the time to actually read & study the ENTIRE hsitory of the subject which you obviously have no ambition or patriotism to do so. 25 Edw stated that shildren of subjects, no matter where born were themselves subjects aka laws of nature, children follow the condition of the father. Those that stayed in the US, and although born here that remained loyal to England, remained subjects & were not considered as citizens and neither were their children unless at their coming of age they took an oath of allegiance to the US. GET IT?
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA58&id=xAE9AAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false
First, Kent used ‘native born’ to discuss the requirements of the Constitution for the Presidency, equating it with natural born.
Second, your quote doesn’t show what you claim.
“(1.) By the 4th section, it was declared, that” the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the states, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized, or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.” “
So the law of 1802 allowed the children of naturalized citizens to automatically become naturalized citizens. “It applies to all the children of “ persons duly naturalized,” under the restriction of residence and minority, at the time of the naturalization of the parent.”
That does not say in any way that a child of a mixed marriage (citizen & not) born in the USA is an alien. Nor has US law blindly followed assigning the citizenship of the father to the child - quite the contrary.
So you are left with your insults, which are a poor substitute for reasoning, and which is why you continue to FAIL every time you birthers bring the issue up with legislatures, state officials, Congress, the Courts, and avid conservatives like Rush, Coulter and Malkin.