Sorry, I'm not wrong.
Three other sources:
Charles Viner's Abridgment of Law. 1741 and 1756
Timothy Cunningham's Law Dictionary. 1764 and 1783
Giles Jacob's New Law Dictionary. 1729, 1762, 1772, and 1782
I'll save you time and trouble... all three reiterate the English law declaring that English-born children of alien parents were denizens, NOT natural born subjects.
Why do I doubt you?
Care to post something besides the names of books, or a list of bills? You have a track record of taking things grossly out of context.
Given the inaccuracy of what you’ve posted already, I’m reluctant to accept these say what you think Blackstone, regarded as THE authority on British common law contradicts this, and we now know that the 1604 “law” you cited never passed. Give Quotes or links please, or did you just get these off some blog?
All those are natural born subjects, whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions.(Cunningham, p.95, in section entitled "Aliens") Not quite what you claim. Also, I found the PDF for John Adams copy of "New Abridgement of the Law" by "A Gentleman of the Middle Temple" original page 77 (PDF page 105) has the identical quote. Given these two, and the estimable Mr. Blackstone, I won't bother tracking down any more of your citations on this matter.