“St George Tucker has been interpreted by some as following British Common law, but his commentary on Blackstone does not support this argument.”
In fact he wrote an entire appendix about how the US didn’t adopt the Common Law.
Ellsworth said the opposite.
“it is obvious that specific components of it did not. (Primogeniture, Corruption of Blood, Debtor’s Prison, etc. )’
Yeah, including Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws. And when the Founders varied from the English Law precedent they expressly said they were varying from the English Law precedent.
“Pennsylvania, as you know, ordered it’s Supreme Court to come up with a list of which English Laws were still in effect, and which were not. (Which they did.)’
And Zephaniah Swift said in 1795 children born in Connecticut of alien parents were considered natural born subjects.
“My primary theory is that Vattel was too widely known at this point in history for any one of the delegates to have been confused about this issue.”
And Blackstone was also very well known.
During the debates on the 1790 naturalization law, Congressman Jackson after quoting from Blackstone’s “Commentaries” on English naturalization laws, said, “So that here we find, in the nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely, necessary to be pursed in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners.”
So the Founders used English Law as a guide to how aliens became citizens. It’s not that much of a stretch to say they also used it to determine how citizenship was acquired at birth.
I recall no such explicit notice from the founders. In fact, I recall Madison pointing out that "not much notice" is taken of the Common Law of England, and that had they consistently made a distinction, they would have written a digest of laws rather than a constitution.
And Zephaniah Swift said in 1795 children born in Connecticut of alien parents were considered natural born subjects.
I Went and looked up Zephaniah Swift's commentary regarding this. He appears to make a distinction between people born in Connecticut and people born in other states, leading me to believe he is referring to Connecticut law specifically, and not Federal law. That may very well be the case. Some states adopted the common law rule for citizenship, and others did not.
As a matter of fact, that quote comes from a book entitled "A system of the laws of the State of Connecticut: in six books." State specific, as opposed to Federal. Even so, further reading indicates that it is doubtful he would consider the child of Aliens to be a "natural born subject" of Connecticut if the parents left shortly after the child was born. It would be nonsensical for a child to have an attachment of allegiance to a nation that they didn't grow up in.
And Blackstone was also very well known.
Yes he was, but Mostly regarding Civil and Criminal law, not so much regarding International law, at which Vattel was regarded as the master. Even Blackstone's interpretation was not so expansive as what people want to interpret it to be.
So the Founders used English Law as a guide to how aliens became citizens. It’s not that much of a stretch to say they also used it to determine how citizenship was acquired at birth.
How many other examples did they have to chose from? Of course they adopted a lot of English Law and methodology, but not in the cases where it conflicted with an underlying American Principal, as did the Common law principle of perpetual allegiance. "Nemo potest exuere Patriam."
"No man can put off allegiance to his father's land."