No one doubts that the Founders made exceptions and changes to the Common Law. And in most cases they liberalized the laws not make them more restrictive.
Maryland changed their law in 1771 so that naturalized subjects could be elected to the Assembly (this was to allow Jonathan Hager, a naturalized subject to serve in the Assembly).
They incorporated the English Common Law into their state constitution in 1777.
In 1779, the Maryland Assembly passed a naturalization act that used the term “natural born subjects” five times.
In 1780, the Assembly granted the sons of Baron de Kalb the rights of natural born subjects.
In 1784, the Assembly granted the “major-general the marquis de la Fayette” and his male sons the rights of natural born citizens of Maryland.
BTW, Pennsylvania’s 1776 constitution also allowed naturalized natural born subjects to serve in their legislature after two years.
In 1779, the Maryland Assembly passed a naturalization act that used the term “natural born subjects” five times.
In 1780, the Assembly granted the sons of Baron de Kalb the rights of natural born subjects.
BTW, Pennsylvania’s 1776 constitution also allowed naturalized natural born subjects to serve in their legislature after two years.
As I have pointed out to you, in this era, the normal and usual word to describe membership status in a nation was "subject." The word "subject" is tied to Monarchical rule and English common law. We threw it that off, and with it we threw off this relationship to the government known as "subject."
The word "citizen" does not come from English common law. It comes from Swiss law and practice.
In 1784, the Assembly granted the “major-general the marquis de la Fayette” and his male sons the rights of natural born citizens of Maryland.
Sons? You mean the mantle of citizenship only descends from males? That sounds strangely like Vattel.