It is referenced no where in the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The book was used by Pennsylvania courts for many decades, and if you think there is the slightest chance that it did not reflect the law as understood by and as based on the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania then you are a deluded loon.
But then none of us will be surprised at that.
Sorry, but the point once again fails completely.
The legislature of Pennsylvania directed the Supreme Court of that State to determine which STATUTES of English law were in effect in that State.
Do you understand what COMMON LAW was? And do you understand what a STATUTE is?
Hint: They are not the same thing.
The book is a book about which STATUTES, that is, which LAWS ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE, were deemed to be in force in the State of Pennsylvania.
It is NOT a book that attempts to list the provisions of the COMMON LAW that were in force in that State.
In 1777, the State of Pennsylvania had passed the following STATUTE:
1. "Each and every one of the laws or acts of general assembly, that were in force and binding on the inhabitants of the said province on the 14th day of May last, shall be in force and binding on the inhabitants of this state, from and after the 10th day of February next, as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if the said laws, and each of them, had been made or enacted by this general assembly . . . . and the common law and such of the statute laws of England, as have heretofore been in force in the said province, except as hereafter excepted.
Therefore, the COMMON LAW in general was specifically acknowledged to be in force in the State of Pennsylvania, except as it had been amended.
In fact, either the common law in general, or its specific rule regarding citizenship by birth, was in force IN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE THIRTEEN ORIGINAL COLONIES.
The book was used by Pennsylvania courts for many decades, and if you think there is the slightest chance that it did not reflect the law as understood by and as based on the Judges of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania then you are a deluded loon.
To the extent that it LISTED AND PRESENTED THE TEXT of the statutes in force, it reflected the law.
To the extent that it INTERPRETED or COMMENTED ON those statutes, unless it specifically referenced the opinions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or some other higher authority, such comments represented the understanding and opinion of its author.
Let's review where this book came from.
The PA legislature decided it would be a good idea to ask the Supreme Court to determine which English STATUTES were in force in that State.
Everyone already knew that the COMMON LAW was in force, except as amended. That provision had been enacted in 1777.
But it wasn't quite clear which STATUTES were still in force.
So the Supreme Court sat down and made a LIST of the statutes. This was their REPORT.
And people like Samuel Roberts, who was responsible for administering the State's law in the county courts, looked at this list and said, "That's nice. But what would be even NICER would be if we had all of these statutes in one single book, so we don't have to go hunting and hunting for the actual text."
So Roberts took it upon himself to turn the LIST into a BOOK, that would contain all of that information.
He also flat-out objected to the Supreme Court's recommendation that all of these laws be re-enacted in a simplified form.
Why? Because they already had decades if not centuries of court cases that had interpreted and clarified those laws as they already were. Roberts didn't want to reinvent the wheel.
Roberts argued that - instead of taking the Supreme Court's approach - a better approach would simply be to compile all those laws in one volume, so people would know what they were.
So that's what he did.
There's not the slightest evidence he did so at the behest of the Supreme Court; in fact, it's clear that he DIDN'T.
The Supreme Court didn't ask for those laws to be compiled in a book. They didn't sponsor the project.
On the contrary, THEIR proposed approach was to get rid of those laws by re-enacting them in a (hopefully) simplified form!
So along the way, Roberts also made a few comments.
Those comments were his. They weren't the Supreme Court's.
And his particular comment you cite, that children born in the United States of aliens are not citizens, was Samuel Roberts' opinion, and no one else's.
He cited no other authority or precedent. He simply said that children born in the United States of alien parents were not citizens.
We have no idea where he got that idea from. Again, he cites no court case. He cites no common law precedent. He cites no other authority. Nothing.
And unlike William Rawle, there is absolutely nothing we know that would connect Roberts to any important Founder at all.