I have. I've already demonstrated that I know a significant amount of relevant US History. None of Trumbull's statements contradict or negate how he summed it up before Congress:
What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.Much more on this, here:
And by the way... "After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. In England at the time, every person born, with few exceptions such as children born of mix-parentage (they acquired the condition of their father if he was a freeman, else child acquired their mother’s citizenship) or diplomats within the realm of the King was considered a natural born subject under the maxim every man owes natural allegiance to the King."
Even in England at the time of the American Revolution, children born to foreign fathers were NOT considered natural born subjects. They acquired their father's citizenship.
“Even in England at the time of the American Revolution, children born to foreign fathers were NOT considered natural born subjects. They acquired their father’s citizenship. “
False. Children of aliens, born in the UK, were natural born subjects unless the children of ambassadors or an invading foreign army.
You've demonstrated you can cherry pick one small part and ignore the rest of the speech he made to Congress, where he explained what he meant. Like this part
It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.and also from Trumbull
The senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States, and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might, perhaps, be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'that all persons born in the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens;' but, upon investigation, it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens,”So those who only owe "a sort of allegiance," such as a foreign minister temporarily residing in the US, were excluded. He specifically included others:
And quoting something off a blog doesn't mean much, especially when that blog doesn't back up what they say. Try Blackstone instead:Mr. Trumbull: “I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?”
Mr. Cowan: “I think not.”
Mr. Trumbull: “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”
Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”
Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. 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; and aliens, such as are born out of it....The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such...The blog you are quoting appears to misunderstand Blackstone, who later said
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.So to educate the author of the blog you are quoting, those born in Great Britain, unless children of foreign ministers, were natural born subjects. Those born outside of Britain of British fathers were natural born subjects.