[edge919]

You've now managed to completely muddle your point. First you argued that common law equals natural law equals Vattel, then you pointed out Blackstone (who clearly told you what Common Law was with regard to "natural born".) Now you are trying to use Blackstone to contradict what Blackstone has said. Very muddled, and does not support what you are trying to say.

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.

[sometime lurker]

What exactly is muddled to you about that?? Be specific.

Oh, I will. But if you follow your usual pattern, it won't help because you refuse to see anything that contradicts your pet theory.

To start, you said:

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. Shall we look at what Blackstone actually said on the specifics of children of aliens born in the dominions of England?

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

What exceptions? Those born in the dominion of the king but out of the king's ligeance: children of foreign ministers or ambassadors, occupying troops.

He also says of denizens

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.

Let's break it down for you real sloooow.

• Blackstone states that those born in England, even of alien parents, are generally natural born subjects (the exceptions listed above, born out of the king's ligeance.)
• A denizen can't inherit English lands from his parent, because the parent is an alien.
• The issue of a denizen, (if not a natural born subject) can't inherit English lands
• Children of aliens born within the ligeance are natural born subjects with all the rights of such, therefore they can inherit.

A little tricky for you to follow, perhaps, since you are so determined to ignore Blackstone's clear statement that English born children of alien parents are natural born subjects.

I addressed Rogers v. Bellei and debunked your misconceptions in Post #571, #375 and #364. Sorry, that's three strikes. You're out.

You'd like that to be true, but your so-called "debunking":

• #364 you claimed "Right. Our "law" in this area follows English concepts, but natural-born citizen is EXCLUDED from the 14th amendment Funny, nothing in the 14th amendment says that.
• #375 you claim the Rogers v. Bellei decision recognizes a category of "citizen at birth" that was NOT based on jus soli. Neither your "jus soli" NOR the "citizen at birth" in Bellei fit the SCOTUS definiton of NBC ... which is: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Except that Bellei clearly states in the opinion that we follow jus soli. Which is a much clearer statement than the Minor case where the court is very clear that there is doubt and that the case won't resolve the doubt. If you can't accept the Rogers v. Bellei clear statement that the US follows England in jus soli because the case was not about a citizen born in the US, how hypocritical of you to claim that Minor's statement of doubt is controlling when that case wasn't about citizenship at all, but about suffrage.
• Your "debunking" in #561 consisted of "I like what I think they said in Minor v Happersett better!" in and claiming that Rogers V Bellei only applied to colonial statutes. A reading comprehension problem again, no doubt, when the opinion said

  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.

  Funny, no mention that the Justices thought this only applied to colonial statutes.

If this is what you think debunks clear statements by SCOTUS, no wonder you are so confused about the issue.