[Nero Germanicus]

“For example, if the Founders created the “natural born” requirement with the understanding or intention to incorporate the statutory laws of England, then why, in the notes of the committee discussions of the drafting of the Naturalization Act of 1790, did one of the committee members state that “The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III.” If the English statutes were already incorporated, why was Congress in 1790 drafting a law specifically in order to provide for what was already provided for in one of the supposedly incorporated English statutes?”

---

Look up the term “Reception Statute.” English common law was adopted on an issue by issue basis, never in its entirety. The statement of the committeee member makes sense to me as other members might not have agreed with adopting English practice on that particular point.
Just like today, the Founders and Framers did not agree unanimously on nearly anything. There were fights and arguments, compromises and walkouts. Patrick Henry refused to even attend the Constitutional Convention because [he] “smelt a rat.”
The state of Rhode Island refused to send a delegation at all
The Naturalization Act of 1790 is important to this discussion because it shows the original thinking of Framers who were in the first Congress on the issue of the status of foreign born citizens..

[Joachim]

The statement of the committeee member makes sense to me as other members might not have agreed with adopting English practice on that particular point.

Occam's razor cuts the other way. The statement makes perfect sense if the speaker and the other members of the committee knew that English statutory law regarding foreign born children was not already in effect in the U.S. No one replied that the proposed provision might be unnecessary because of the effects of English statutes.

Look up the term “Reception Statute.” English common law was adopted on an issue by issue basis, never in its entirety. The statement of the committeee member makes sense to me as other members might not have agreed with adopting English practice on that particular point.

Reception statutes are state laws. States adopted English common law (and in some cases certain statutory laws of England) through reception statutes or through judical rulings. That is how English common law (and English statutory law) continued to have effect in the U.S., giving some continuity to the legal system through the founding period.

There is no federal reception statute, and there is no Supreme Court ruling adopting English common law into federal law (except possibly in special narrow categories of federal jurisdiction such as in admiralty and maritime cases), let alone English statutes. And, despite the statement to the contrary in the New Jersey opinion, the Constitution did and does not "adopt[ ] English 'common law' " (see p. 10 at the link).

There is a principle of Consitutional interpretation that the English common law is a source for understanding the Constution, and that undefined terms should be "read in light of British Common law." To my knowledge, no court has (previously) ruled that undefined ters in the Constitution should be read in light of British statutes.