Conditions that gave that status at birth had to do with BOTH / EITHER parents or soil - there was nothing in English law demanding both.
Nothing in U.S. law demanded both either - as the 1790 act showed to all but the willfully ignorant.
Our Constitution allows for two types of U.S. citizenship currently - those that were born as citizens and those that had to be naturalized as citizens.
Nowhere in the Constitution is the term “native born” - you must have gotten that from penumbras and emanations.
Well then isn't it a great thing that English law was neither practiced nor put in effect here in America where we wrote and established our own law.
“Conditions that gave that status at birth had to do with BOTH / EITHER parents or soil - there was nothing in English law demanding both.”
That is a false statement. There was an English law in effect during one time period in which a natural born subject of the King of England whose parents were not born as subjects of the King of England was ineligible to hold offical office, but natural born subjects of Englishmen born in England were eligible.
U.S. Federal law is not English common-law and never was.
First, you are confusing the differences between “natural born” and “subject born,” which cannot be equated in definition.
“Conditions that gave that status at birth had to do with BOTH / EITHER parents or soil - there was nothing in English law demanding both.”
That is a false statement. Parliament had to enact new laws in the 17th Century and 18th Century in order for the those children born in England while having foreign parents to become subjects made by act of mand-made statutory law, whereas the children born in England whose parents were English were by natural law and circumstance subjects born.
The 1790 act regarded foreign birth only, because citizenship was determined by state laws, and the United States of America did not have uniform citizenship Federal laws until many decades to follow.
No Federal statute is required to establish “natural born citizenship,” because natural born citizenship is a fact of nature and natural law, whereas citizenship arising from a staturoy act is man-made and thereby unnatural citizenship wherever the nativity occurs. Attempts to deny natural born citizenship ibecause it does is not established by a statutory act is illogical and irrational by definition of what is natural and what is unnatural. Conferring citizenship by the act of a statute is unnatural birthright citizenship as in the English subject made at birth versus subject born at birth.
Native born did not need to appear in the Constitution, because citizenship and definitions of citizenship was the subject of state laws and not Federal laws when the Constitution was drafted and adopted.