Focus, lurky. We're talking specifically about citizenship law and how the common law was NOT respected. This was but one example directly related to that.
So yes, there was selectivity, but many terms in the Constitution are taken directly from common law. "Natural born" is one of them.
The term is broader and more generic than just a common law term. Online etymology says the term was attested back to the 1580s, which coincides nicely with a book published in 1598 about a Dutch explorer, named Jan Huyghen van Linschoten, who described natives in the East Indies as "natural borne."
Now it is not so straightlie looked unto, but they may goe in all places of the towne, & within the Hand, but not about it, to view the coast: which notwithstanding was graunted unto us, by the Governor himself, who lent us his horses, to ryde about, and gave us leave to see all the fortes, which at this time is not permitted to the naturall borne Handera, neyther are they so much credited.Again I remind you of President Reagan's attorney general writing that we follow jus soli.
link
Reagan's attorney is or was entitled to an opinion. It matters not because the Supreme Court is going to look to its own precedents, not Edwin Meese's writings.
In case you don't realize this, some colonies were established and had laws/charters dating from before the 1708 English statute making those born of English citizens abroad natural born.
... except that they weren't presumed to carry over into U.S. law as was general citizenship of being born of "ourselves and our posterity." You're making my case for me. Thanks.
Yup, the Supreme Court is going to look at WKA, Rogers v. Bellei, etc.