Why are you using a definition for "analogous" that comes from a medical dictionary? That's a precise, limited meaning of the term, and there's no indication that "structure" means "meaning" as you imply--things like wings and organs, which is what the definition applies to, don't have meaning, though they do have structure.
It's probably more accurate to use the defintion from the field of logic, which would turn the quote into
The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous (Similar in one particular aspect that can be inferred from their similarity in other aspects) to the term “subject” in the common law...
That would lead one to conclude that since "citizen" and "subject" are precisely similar ("like each other but not identical") in several respects, they must be like each other in the respect under consideration, which is citizenship. And a reasonable conclusion from that would be that whatever "natural born subject" meant, "natural born citizen" must mean also.
“precisely analogous (Similar in function but not in structure(meaning) and evolutionary origin)”
Thank you. I didn’t notice that he was using a medical dictionary to argue law. I cannot say I’m surprised...honesty is not strong with him, as Yoda would say.
“analogous adj.
Similar in function but not in structure and evolutionary origin.
The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary”
ANAL'OGOU’S, a. Having analogy ; bearing some resemblance or proportion ; followed by to; as, there is something in the exercise of the mind analogous to that of the body.
What part of “subject” resembles that of the “sovereign citizen”? Only in a qualified & limited sense under the English definition of a subject as not all English subjects were held equal. And also, never have the terms citizen & subject been equal in their origins. In ancient times of Rome & Athens where we 1st find the definitions of the terms subject & citizen, subject is used interchangeably with slave, while a citizen partakes in the making & enforcing of the laws. They rule over the subjects/slaves. The only way to become a citizen was to have been born to citizen parents.
So yes, they may be “(Similar in one particular aspect that can be inferred from their similarity in other aspects)”, but they can never be similar in their origins. One is conferred upon a person either at birth or naturalization by a sovereign King or Prince and can never be cast off, the other is derived by consent, either through the explicit consent of the individual or tacit consent through the citizen parents and can be changed when the individual no longer finds citizenship is a certain place conducive to his pursuit of happiness.
Hence “change of government, change of origins of how one becomes a member” of that new society that was formed. IN America, the government is NOT the sovereign, the sovereignty is in “We the People” as reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]