I just realized at least part of the disconnect here: The "Birthers" (in the broadest sense) are trying to argue that because the English common law is the basis for U.S. law, that it then trumps (pun intended) U.S. law. This is nonsense.
English common law is a "rough draft" for our laws. In effect, it says that if we don't have a specific law to cover a situation, or if our law is ambiguous, then we can use English common law to clarify the issue.
If Congress had never passed an Immigration bill, then common law would be relevant. But Congress did pass Immigration laws, which included definitions of "Natural Born Citizen". Because Congress passed specific laws covering the issue, common law is no longer relevant.
“If Congress had never passed an Immigration bill, then [English] common law would be relevant.”
As pertains to the Constitution, no, it wouldn’t.
“But Congress did pass Immigration laws [plural], which included definitions [plural] of ‘Natural Born Citizen’.”
This suggests there are multiple definitions for NBC. How confusing.