"In light of" doesn't mean "in strict adherence of." When we look at citizenship in light of English common law, it's very obvious the U.S. did not adopt English common law. It couldn't, else there wouldn't have been a way to become U.S. citizens. English common law requires perpetual allegiance. There's no parallel for this in U.S. law.
When the Minor court defined NBC, they didn't go to English common law for a definition. The definition they cited was nearly verbatim from the law of nations.
Also, thanks to resident Obot Jeff Winston for citing a case that shows very early in our nation's history how the U.S. relied on law of nations in a case involving citizenship: Talbot v. Janson (1795):
As we have no statute of the United States, on the subject of emigration, I have taken up the doctrine respecting it, as it stands on the broad basis of the law of nations, and have argued accordingly.
I agree with you that”in light of” does not mean strict adherence to. Supreme Court Zjustice have referenced English Common Law to explain their understandings of undefined terms and to provide historical context and philoophical rationale for their decisions.
In Minor v. Happersett, the majority offered an opinion on the meaning of the term natural born citizen, but they concluded their discusion of the term by saying: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”—
Minor v. Happersett (1874).