Replies

The full Blackstone context and not a selected piece taken out of context:

“WHEN I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.
“Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
“THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”

And others have re-introduced you to the treatise "Law of Nations", which goes further than Blackstone.

There is plenty of support in law for the position that since a man's Dad is a foreign citizen of temporary residence in the United States, that the man even if born on the National Mall during the 4th of July celebration, with thousands of witnesses -- is not "natural born".

The full Blackstone context and not a selected piece taken out of context:

You mean like you do here?

that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king

Did you miss the part about "born abroad"?

Those birth abroad was never an issue here. It has already been well established that under the laws of the time, if Obama were born in Kenya or anyplace else outside the US, his mother was not old enough to automatically confer US citizenship on him of any sort. He would have had to have been naturalized.

The issue here has to do with being born in the US. Not abroad. And as Blackstone clearly states, under British common law, the children born in England are natural born whether their parents were citizens or not.

Now, if one were born in France to alien parents, then they would not have been considered natural born, they would have been considered aliens. But we did not arise out of a French colony, we arose out of a British colony.

So I fail to see what your point is here with the text you highlighted.