Within the 39th Congress the indigenous tribes and their offspring were treated differently from immigrant aliens. And the SCOTUS in WKA observes likewise that the Indian tribes presented a special case unknown to the common law.
And your point is . . . ?
Slaves were also unknown to the common law. Neither did they inherit through Vattel's natural law. That is why they weren't citizens, and that is why there had to be an amendment passed to make them into citizens.
But Rawle was arguing that the Common Law applied to Slaves back in the 1790s. He lost all those cases. Every one of them.
So what are we to make of a "common law" with several millions of exceptions?
I will point out that the Vattel definition doesn't have millions of exceptions. Using it, Slaves and Indians fall outside the category called "citizen" because they have no national character to inherit from their fathers.
Also, the Children of British subjects born in America after 1776 were another large group of exceptions. (I've seen varying estimates between 15,000 and 100,000) They retained their Allegiance to England, rather than being forced into US Allegiance because they were born on US Land.
Your theory would force them into US Allegiance against the wishes of their parents. It certainly worked that way in England. Now tell me again how we followed the English Law rule?