Your opinion, backed up by very little. There are many citations saying the US follows English common law, some from very early on. In another thread I cited an early author on the Constitution, William Rawle: A View of the Constitution from the 1820's (two different editions) which of course you did not like
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…. Who was Rawle? US District Attorney for Pennsylvania, appointed by George Washington. There are also various statements from court cases, which you don't want to credit because you disagree with them.
(In any case, you acknowledge that we absolutely rejected English Common law regarding the Children of Englishman always being an Englishman as they tried to apply it to Americans. Good, that's progress. :)
Not really progress since I've known that one since I learned about the War of 1812 in Junior High.
You have a funny idea what constitutes very little. Near as I can tell, my side has ten times the evidence that your side does. We have a SPECIFIC definition, widely known among the founders, while you merely offer "hand waving" about an ephemeral law from a nation who's rule we threw off, and indeed fought a second war with on the very issue of applying their citizenship laws to us!
There are many citations saying the US follows English common law, some from very early on. In another thread I cited an early author on the Constitution, William Rawle: A View of the Constitution from the 1820's (two different editions) which of course you did not like
We follow Common law in cases where it was not specifically rejected. English Citizenship laws are an example of where it was. Twice.
Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…
I have already ceded Rawles to you. He is one of those that simply didn't get the memo. However Supreme Court Justice Marshall and Supreme Court Justice Washington are of superior legal heft to Rawles, and you seemingly don't like Their opinion.
Justice Washington for the Majority:
"1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word "domicile," but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates "strangers" and the latter "subjects," and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them."
Chief Justice Marshall:
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
"The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
The two opinions by Supreme Court Justices who were contemporaries of the Founders, are an absolute refutation of your theory, yet you persist in presenting it! Those two quotes blow "Rawles" completely out of the water. They are as of Cannons to a squirt gun!
I am however, certain that you will come back with something which will pretend to be a response. How you can ignore this absolute "shoot down" by TWO members of the Supreme Court (1814) is unfathomable for someone with intellectual honesty. For crying out loud, they BOTH specifically cite VATTEL on the issue of citizenship! The Fish do not jump any higher into the boat than this!