[allmendream]

Yes and in English law, in the language the founders were familiar with and the law the lawyers of the group were operating under - “natural born” included those born on the soil of any parentage.

It meant a citizen at birth - as it does now - and it INCLUDED those born on the soil of any parentage.

The concept had indeed been applied for centuries. And natural born citizenship has in all cases been calculated on either parentage or place of birth - sometimes both - and sometimes not.

English law said one thing, Vatell said another. I don't really care what either said - I follow our Constitution - which - as I keep pointing out - includes only TWO types of citizen currently - natural born or naturalized.

It is an interesting concept that our law is inferior or dependent upon the views of an 18th Century Swiss philosopher - but so far it seems that most American jurists are of the opinion that being born a citizen means you are a natural born citizen. I have yet to see anyone besides birthers advance the idea that a citizen at birth is a naturalized citizen.

[philman_36]

I see that your last reply was to reply 112.
Did you not see my reply 109 where you're exposed for the shill you are?

[Political Junkie Too]

Yes and in English law, in the language the founders were familiar with and the law the lawyers of the group were operating under - “natural born” included those born on the soil of any parentage.

It meant a citizen at birth - as it does now - and it INCLUDED those born on the soil of any parentage

Why do you insist on that when I showed clearly from Thomas Paine's words from just 2 years after ratification that the Framers did NOT mean "natural born" to include those born of any parentage?

-PJ