It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.What Madison is saying here is Mr. Smith's father, grandfather, and great grandfather, his entire family, were all born in the colony he was then attempting to represent as a Congressman. This is the very heart of the discussion with regards to allegiance. Without it, this passage means absolutely nothing.
-- James Madison, House of Representatives, 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179--82
This is an excellent citation. Unfortunately it is incomplete, so you and anyone else citing it this way are not placing Madison’s quotation into the proper legal context. Let me cite Madison correctly:
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony.
— James Madison, House of Representatives, 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179—82
What Madison is saying here is Mr. Smith’s father, grandfather, and great grandfather, his entire family, were all born in the colony he was then attempting to represent as a Congressman. This is the very heart of the discussion with regards to allegiance. Without it, this passage means absolutely nothing.
Purposeful omissions such as these completely contradict the very reason it is being quoted. This is not only sloppy, it is unethical and it diminishes ones reputation.
Justice Scalia: [natural born citizenship]...requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”
The Wong court also said:
Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.
and the Supreme Court’s majority in Wong Kim Ark also stated that: “
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.
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.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html