I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I've studied this issue quite a lot, and there are plenty of books which say that only birth inside our borders is all it takes. The Damage that Rawle and other British Lawyers did has been reflected by subsequent books.
Pardon the intrusion of a desperately deserved thrashing :-)
but the 'born within the borders' and 'born into a country' are the single MOST misunderstood concept of the whole thing, IMHO.
The Founders were NEVER talking about a physical location when they spoke of 'birth within the country', but a political affiliation. A man-made concept of a political 'tie'.
This is exactly what Madison said concerning the Naturalization Act of 1790 -
½ way down the page
Mr. Madison.--When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and declare their intention to reside in the United States. Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying at the same time all the advantages of citizens and aliens.
This carried through to the Act of 1790 which even the people who fought the Revolution were subject to:
and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application,
This administration of the Oath is also in the Act of 1795.
James Kent said this was STILL the standard in 1825:
• [3rd paragraph from bottom]
In 1825, they passed a general and permanent statute, enabling aliens to take and hold lands in fee, and to sell, mortgage, and devise, but not demise or lease the same, equally, as if they were native citizens, provided the party had previously taken an oath that he was a resident in the United States, and intended always to reside therein, and to become a citizen thereof as soon as he could be naturalized, and that he had taken the incipient measures required by law for that purpose.
........ that every person of good character, who comes into the state, and settles, and takes an oath of allegiance to the same, may thereupon purchase, and by other just means, acquire, hold, and transfer land, and after one year's residence, become entitled to most of the privileges of a natural born subject.
………. The article in the constitution of the United States, declaring that citizens of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, applies only to natural born or duly naturalized citizens, ........
James Kent, Commentaries
---------
It is strictly a political tie... an 'allegiance', and it's the exact same concept noted by Blackstone.
OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England i
------
Without the Oath, people remained 'alien', so being born on the soil of the geographical location we know as 'the States' or the United States has no bearing whatsoever on natural-born citizenship.
Without the Oath, there IS NO tie. Without the 'tie', there can be no *natural-born citizenship*.
Sorry if my post comes off as long-winded or snappish. I truly appreciate ALL the detailed research you've done on the subject.
It's just that this political tie concept seem so frustratingly simple to me. I can't believe I can be the only one who sees it.