““In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
Was 1785 before or after the Constitution was written, let alone ratified?
The POINT is that they used the terms interchangeably.
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Yes, the STATES used the terms interchangeably. Since the federal governments authority was to make a 'uniform rule for naturalization' for immigrants, not residents, the States were passing legislation that was rightfully in their authority.
So what?
It probably took several years for ALL the States to get the legislation passed in order to affirm everyone that had been born there was properly enrolled as a 'natural-born' person.
Again, so what?
Those actions of the Commonwealths and/or States in no way grants the FEDERAL government the jurisdiction to control every aspect of citizenship.....neither then, NOR now.