Sorry, but whether the common law included the case of TRANSIENT aliens or not, both Sandford and the US Supreme Court absolutely contradict you and say you're a fool.
As I said before, I'm going with those Justices over you.
But it's not just them. It's virtually every other significant legal authority in all of US history as well.
Now, cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.
I already did. Now YOU cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is NOT a U.S. citizen.
No, they do not.
The passage to which you refer:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.At least one law which proves definitively that the same rule was NOT in force in the U.S. under the Constitution:III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
Note how New York State law clearly disproves that inane assertion in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark obiter dicta.
Common law was NOT in effect in the U.S.
Again, I'm asking, with the asinine "common law" theory disproved definitively, cite the law that supports your assertion that one born under Obama's birth circumstances is a U.S. citizen.