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!
Let's dissect that a bit. If your side has "ten times the evidence, no one here has seen it. We have seen opinions declared fact, butchered quotes (not from you), and statements taken out of context while equally or more numerous statements in the same case for the other side are ignored.
As for what you call "handwaving" we have statements from court cases (including the definitive Rogers v Bellei, and Ankeny) Statements from US Attorneys General, Legal writers from the early days of the country.
In terms of the English common law "from a nation who's rule we threw off" I am always entertained when the "natural born" brigade comes up with this one. In case you are not aware, we did not fight England because we didn't like common law. We fought because the freedoms which common law guaranteed were withheld from the colonies. (Remember "no taxation without representation?" That trials by jury were abolished in the colonies by the King?) Here, for instance is the English Bill or Rights of 1689.
You seem to make a big deal out of one piece of British common law we did not adopt - the right to expatriate. There are other places where we differ from English common law (9th and 10th amendments, to my unlawyerly eye). Pointing to where we differ does not change the large amount of American law that came from English law (as proclaimed by Justice Scalia.)
I have already ceded Rawles to you. He is one of those that simply didn't get the memo.
As you dismiss every one that differs.
Your quote from Justice Washington proves nothing, as he is discussing the rights of citizens vs. what we now call "legal residents". This does not address your "natural born" issue. As to "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." are you now coming to realize that "subject" and "citizen" are often analogous in English and American law respectively? True progress!
As to the Marshall quote, firstly, you seem to fall prey to Edge's problem, assuming that "law of nations" always refers to the book by that name, rather than the body of international law. As I said before, it's rather like assuming every time "chemistry" is mentioned it refers to the textbook I used in high school with that name. The greater problem with the quote is that it was not about who was a citizen, he cited a large block of Vattel, mainly bearing on whether American merchants residing in England were now considered enemies who could have their goods taken by an American privateer. Marshall is not exploring the issue of "natural born," but rather a matter affected by international law. If I recall correctly, you were one of the people who didn't want to deal with cases that weren't specifically about citizenship? (or am I confusing you with someone else?)
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!
Sheesh. How about the members of the Supreme Court early on who cite common law on citizenship? Have you somehow overlooked Justice Marshall and Justice Story repeatedly citing common law on citizenship in INGLIS V. TRUSTEES OF SAILOR'S SNUG HARBOR? I suspect you have.