“If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
The issue is that before 4th July there was no America. After 15 September NYC was not American territory.
IF YOU ARE BORN ON AMERICAN TERRITORY THAN YOU ARE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN REGARDLESS OF YOUR PARENTS CITIZENSHIP.
As for SHANKS v. DUPONT
“There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the revolution, and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.”
So they recognized a case whereby she was a citizen regardless of her father.
She lost her citizenship due to the Treaty of 1783 because she went to England to live. It is ludicrous to argue that language still applies. It was of limited scope designed purely to untangle the citizenship mess left by the revolution.
Yes, I acknowledged this in my previous comment. The part you're not understanding is that a law was involved in making father Inglis a New York citizen during that brief window.
2. That if he was born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September 1776, he was born an American citizen; and that it makes no difference in this respect, whether or not parents had at the time of his birth, elected to become citizens of the state of New York, by manifesting an intention of becoming permanently members thereof, in the sense which I have endeavoured to explain.
When Story says it makes no difference, he's basing that on the operation of the statute I already mentioned:
We must then give a rational interpretation to the word, consistent with the rights of parties, and the accompanying language of the ordinance. By 'abiding' in the ordinance is meant not merely present inhabitants, but present inhabitancy coupled with an intention of permanent residence. This is apparent from the next clause of the ordinance, where it is declared, 'that all persons passing through, visiting, or making a temporary stay in the state being entitled to the protection of the laws during the time of such passage, visitation, or temporary stay, owe during the same allegiance thereto.' Their 'temporary stay' is manifestly used in contradiction to 'abiding,' and shows that the latter means permanent intentional residence.
- - -
... persons who were resident here without any intention of permanent residence, were not to be regarded as members of the state.
Thus, the "common law" doctrine you cited only applies to resident aliens because temporary visitors were NOT regarded as members of the state. Those with the intention to permanently reside are considered members, thus their children at birth follow the status of the parents.
So they recognized a case whereby she was a citizen regardless of her father.
The part you quoted says she was a citizen by election ... an action of maintaining U.S. residence would constitute the "election" part of the requirement thus adhering to U.S. allegiance, same as her father which was what the "birth" part referred to in the sentence PRIOR to what you quoted.
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina.
In the sentence following what you quoted, it says that if she was not of age, then her citizenship naturally follows her father's which is already established as South Carolina and U.S. citizen.
If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.
Notice it doesn't say she was a British subject because of being born in a British colony prior to the revolution. Her citizenship is as a South Carolina citizen, which automatically transferred to the United States after the DoI.
It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.
Thus Shanks affirms that persons born in a state to parents who were members of that state and adhered to the allegiance of their state, automatically became natural-born citizens of the United States. It's the same principle as used in Minor: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. Thease are the natural-born citizens.
1.UNLESS YOU ARE THE CHILD OF A DIPLOMAT, 2.THE CHILD OF AN INDIAN, 3.THE CHILD OF A SLAVE, 4.THE CHILD OF A BRITISH LOYALIST AFTER THE REVOLUTION, 5.A WOMAN WHO HAS MARRIED A FOREIGNER, 6.THE MARQUE DE LAFAYETTE OR 7.HIS DESCENDANTS, OR 8.A MAN NAMED JAMES MCCLURE.
Your theory is full of holes, and does not comport to the reality that existed.
You really should learn what you are talking about. Spreading such ignorance is not in the best interest of the nation.