Replies

Aside from the English common law is not federal law argument, Blackstone says the same thing.

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; Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

Natural born subjects are born on the soil of England AND within the Allegiance of the King

How can you be born 'within' an Allegiance?

Because your parents are already there.

I have pointed out before that not even ENGLISH law goes so far as they want American Law to go. What's more, the ENGLISH quit using the Jus Soli rule back in the late 19th century, if I remember correctly.

Yes, they interpret Blackstone in the most liberal manner possible, and completely ignore the fact that the English Executive branch is solely governed by just sanguinus. (Right by Blood.)

I will also point out that Other writers on English law made the distinction between "natural born subjects" and Denizens much clearer than did Blackstone. Have you seen this?

See that part where it says "for it is not cælum nor solum that make a subject, but being born within the Allegiance, and under the protection of the King."

Those words "cælum nor solum" mean Sky and Soil. It means that the place where you are born is not the critical factor for determining allegiance, it is the spiritual bond which your parents hold to the King that obligates someone to the same allegiance.

The English, in general, did not trust the children of Non-English parents in positions of authority.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though they wish us to follow the ENGLISH rule for citizenship, the English were never so foolish about it as are we.

No, I hadn't seen that, thanks! Thanks for translating too. I speak fluent Texan, but Latin...not so much. LOL!

-----

What's more, the ENGLISH quit using the Jus Soli rule back in the late 19th century, if I remember correctly.

Honestly, you can go all the way beack to Lord Coke. Even HE said in Calvin’s Case
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other.

so the concept of Sovereignty can't supplant Sovereignty seems to have held true for 400 years.

No, the more I read, the more I'm convinced the whole 'jus soli' business in more a figment of contemporary law.

I will also point out that Other writers on English law made the distinction between "natural born subjects" and Denizens much clearer than did Blackstone. Have you seen this? [historic evidence posted]

That is a very important point. Denizens are unable to pass British citizenship to their children:

"Persons who were British subjects by denization could not pass on the status to their heirs."

Cited from the U.K. Border Agency, the Home Office on matters relating to immigration, permission to stay, work permits, citizenship, and asylum -- http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/denization?view=Binary

Clearly, NOT all those born in the U.K. were natural born subjects.

What's more, the ENGLISH quit using the Jus Soli rule back in the late 19th century, if I remember correctly.

Actually, the ENGLISH quit using the Jus Soli rule at least as early as the early 16th century.

I just posted information showing that Denizens could not pass U.K. citizenship to their offspring. The British Archives have Denization records going back to the early 16th century:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/naturalisation.htm#18296

It's quite clear that the "natural born subject rule" Gray wrote about in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling was purely a figment of his imagination. It hadn't been in effect in England since at least 1509.

"After 1574 children of aliens or even denizens born in England were no longer permitted to work as apprentices with English masters."
http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers2/Esser.pdf

By what distinction are the rights of individuals born in the same place, at the same time, different? Simply this: children born in England to an alien or denizen father were NOT natural born subjects.