Now then, on to your post.
First, let's list the points in favor of Samuel Roberts.
You proceed to critique the man rather than the subject matter. No matter.
You failed to observe a key phrase in the title, "According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court". So you see, it is not Roberts' opinion, but that of the Judges of the Supreme Court.
Roberts does include "Some Others" (also a phrase from the title) and these are clearly marked in the Table of Statutes.
Listed in the Table of Statutes are two British Statutes concerning Aliens, one from the Report of the Judges (25 Edward III. Stat. 2), the other (7 Anne Chap. 5.) from Roberts. The pertinent part of the latter is largely a restatement of the former and seems to be included by Roberts for thoroughness.
Roberts then goes on to note,
"Prior to the American revolution, the stat. 13 Geo. II. c 7, prescribed the general rule for naturalizing such foreign Protestants, and others therein mentioned, as were settled, or should settle in the colonies.""On the establishment of the revolution, these provisions were superseded by a constitutional declaration in the old frame of government, by which every foreigner, of good character, coming to settle in Pennsylvania, having first taken the oath of allegiance, was enabled to purchase and hold real estates ; and after one year's residence was invested with all the rights of a natural born citizen, except that he was not capable of being elected a member of the legislature, till after a residence of two years."
"By the constitution of the United States however, the power of naturalizing foreigners is vested exclusively, in the legislature of the United States."
Roberts is quite right.
Here's a second problem: Roberts says, clearly, that US law is different from that of England. And he even quotes Vattel.
But he fails to state any basis whatsoever on which our law is taken to be different.
It is plainly obvious that United States law is different from England.
There is in the Constitution no Article, Section, Clause, or anything whatsoever which incorporates the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States.
There are reception statutes in the colonies, now states. Whatever species of the common law of England extant in the several states at the time of the Adoption, are by U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 prohibited from incorporation into the Federal government.
The constitution declares, that "this constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."
United States law is different from England.
And since it was the common law of every State in the Union, it became the common law of the country.
As mentioned, there are reception statutes in the colonies now states. So which state's common law should become the "common law of the country"? Should it be Pennsylvania? Virginia?
Is the common law of England in every state the same?
The acts of the British parliament are in force in the different states up to different periods; in some to the reign of one king, in others to that of a different king.
Thus the common law of England would be different in these two states.
Not only is the common law of England different among the states, each state legislature has altered it in different ways; thus the common law of the various states is in no way uniform.
The common law being materially different in all the sates, how can there be any common law in the United States?
How shall it be determined which of the states shall be considered as the standard, so far as to make their common law, the common law of the United States? Shall it be a majority of the states; or shall it be those states which contain a majority of the people of the United States? &c &c
Incorporation of the common law into the Federal govt is impracticable.
(Some of the above is paraphrased from "Observations of Judge Addisons Charge to the Grand Jury On the Liberty-of-the-Press" found in the Appendix to "Correspondence between George Nicholas Esq. of Kentucky, and the Hon. Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, on the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, 1798" The original document, as well as a transcript of the relevant pages is available.)
The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined by the U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. That written law does not grant to the federal judiciary the authority to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing, does not incorporate the common law of England, nor the law or constitution of the several states.
Therefore, in no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.
The children of aliens, born within the U. S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth; but remain in the condition of their parents; however, the naturalization of the father naturalizes all his children, who are in their minority and dwelling within the United States.
Our laws differ from the English laws but are more consistent with reason and the laws of nature.
I've already given a long list of authorities from early America - almost all of them much better authorities than Roberts - who gave what they understood a natural born citzien to be.
Other than that, it's kind of hard to critique his opinion, except to say simply that he cites no authority for it. So it's just his opinion. And unlike Rawle (for example) Roberts was not a judge or authority of national scope. His area of responsibility was over several counties. Rather small.
You failed to observe a key phrase in the title, "According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court". So you see, it is not Roberts' opinion, but that of the Judges of the Supreme Court.
No, because he doesn't link that statement to any statement from the Justicies of the PA Supreme Court. And in fact, it's not even really part of the subject matter that was supposed to come from the Report of the Judges. That was the list of English laws deemed to be in force in Pennsylvania.
Is the common law of England in every state the same?
It was in regard to the basics of citizenship. 1. There is no law anywhere to the contrary. 2. Vice Chancellor Sandford said so. 3. The US Supreme Court agreed with him.