Replies

He speaks of being a citizen at birth. Citizenship came by two means: 1) birth and 2) naturalization.

That's correct. A citizen AT birth is a naturalized citizen. A citizen BY birth is natural born.

---

resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

That's right, that was the common law In England. But as I've already shown you (and you've summarily ignored) Story's own words - what he mentions as the 'common law' is not the end of the discussion. You keep acting as if he just stops in England at that point instead of continuing to explain the laws as they are applicable in the States DO NOT include temporary residents, but those with a political tie-
To constitute a citizen, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government

This is EXACTLY what Blackstone's work said as our country was forming-

OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

Which is also what Tucker said:

A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships15.html

You cannot be 'born within' the Allegiance of a State unless your parents ALREADY possess theirs.

----

Residency is a required procedure before an alien can become a citizen. The Founders insisted that both a residency requirement as well as a renunciation of foreign allegiance for their own generation despite the fact they fought the War.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty
Naturalization Act of 1795
http://www.earlyamerica.com/milestone-events/naturalization-act-of-1795-text/

-------

Believe as you will, but holding anyone else to a lesser standard than the Founders held themselves is not only a patently ridiculous concept, it's destroying the country as well.

This is EXACTLY what Blackstone's work said as our country was forming-

OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

And as it should happen, this is exactly what the Book of English Law which Sat on John Adam's book shelf said as well.( Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgement of the Law, Vol 1, 1736)." )

But it would appear that people of Cpn Kook's ilk have a considerable difficulty with nuance.

A citizen AT birth is a naturalized citizen. A citizen BY birth is natural born.

No. As to the native-born, "citizen at birth" and "citizen by birth" mean the same thing.

Though Story actually uses the term "by birth."

"Now allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship -- first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly birth within the protection and obedience, or in other words within the ligeance of the sovereign.

I merely used the interchangeable "at birth" term. Both speak to the condition (citizen) existing from the moment of birth.

But out of curiosity, what naturalization law are you suggesting existed from 1776 to 1787 that would create some species of "naturalized at birth" person? Keep in mind Inglis's parents were British.

To constitute a citizen, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government

And what does Justice Story say immediately following that sentence? "This is clear from the whole reasoning in Calvin's Case." As I've shown you, Lord Coke in Calvin's Case reasoned that a visiting alien in amity owed a temporary allegiance "strong enough" such that if a child is born to the alien during that period of "momentary and uncertain" duration, said child is deemed natural born.

Which is also what Tucker said

Gray is showing agreement with Lord Coke and the ECL. So does Tucker. In his "Blackstone's Commentaries," Tucker set forth this line from Blackstone:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such." (And that is a summary of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case.)

Tucker then drops a footnote (footnote 10):

10. L. V. Edi. 1794, c. 110. L. U. S. 1 Cong. c. 3. 7 Cong. c. 28. accordant. Link

The references are to three items of U.S law: 1) Laws of Virginia of 1794 (the citizenship law for the Commonwealth originally drafted by Jefferson); 2) The Naturalization Act of 1790; and 3) the 1802 Naturalization Act.

Of these Tucker states U.S. law is "accordant" meaning in agreement with Blackstone. So Tucker is indicating that American law is in agreement with the jus soli view of Blackstone.

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it."

This is a purely jus soli, territorial division. It supports what I'm saying. There are no "citizen parents" in view here.

You cannot be 'born within' the Allegiance of a State unless your parents ALREADY possess theirs.

Parents who are aliens within the State (nation) who are in amity (i.e, not an ambassador or aligned to a hostile invading force) are deemed to own an allegiance to the local sovereign. So those parents possess the requisite allegiance by which their issue is natural born.

Residency is a required procedure before an alien can become a citizen.

For those who are not born here, that is true. But if one is born here, one is a natural born citizen and not an alien.

holding anyone else to a lesser standard than the Founders held themselves

This is begging the question. I agree the standards that were set must be met. I merely contend you don't understand what those were.