You've managed to misunderstand what you've read:
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.The exceptions are well known, and have been discussed before: children of ambassadors and foreign ministers, children of occupying armies. As for
A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: a high and incommunicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise, which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to the son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue of a denizen, born before denization, cannot inherit to him; but his issue born after, may.Read the first sentence again - a denizen is an alien born (not born in the dominions of of England). He says this specifically "an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions." So a denizen is an alien who has been (sort of) naturalized; the British version of this at the time was not like American naturalization.
Your discussion of expatriation is another straw man - as if I claimed that all common law was taken unchanged. What is clear is "natural born subject" was stated by many justices, legal scholars, etc. to continue to the colonies, to the Constitution, and down to the current day as "natural born citizen." You can wiggle all you want, but it's clear. You have no answer to Rogers v. Bellei who clearly state that we follow this
We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.
I'm here to help you understand all that you obviously do not understand, so I'll simplify it for you. Vattel is a widely quoted authority on the natural law of nations, and Blackstone noted that the law of nations helped from the basis, but not the entirety of common law. It was a starting point. Subsequent legislation, as noted by both Vattel and Blackstone, took common law beyond the limits of the natural law of nations. What exactly is muddled to you about that?? Be specific.
Read the first sentence again - a denizen is an alien born (not born in the dominions of of England). He says this specifically "an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions." So a denizen is an alien who has been (sort of) naturalized; the British version of this at the time was not like American naturalization.
Use your brain lurky. What is a denizen PRIOR to receiving letters?? Answer: an alien. The issue of a denizen prior to denization (an alien) can not inherit and is NOT considered a natural born subject because of that.
Your discussion of expatriation is another straw man - as if I claimed that all common law was taken unchanged.
Yes, this is YOUR strawman. I didn't say ANYTHING about "all common law." Here's what I said:
There is also a clear principle explained by Blackstone that was completely rejected in the United States relating to natural-born and common law:
Does that say "all common law"??? Neither does the other challenge I made to your assumptions:
Now, why are we to presume that common law would comprehensively define citizenship in this country when we firmly rejected the CORE principle that was used by Blackstone to define "natural-born"??
Two quotes from me. Neither says NOR suggests anything about "all common law." No wonder you invented a strawman. You know I'm right.
You have no answer to Rogers v. Bellei who clearly state that we follow this
I addressed Rogers v. Bellei and debunked your misconceptions in Post #571, #375 and #364. Sorry, that's three strikes. You're out.