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.
No, they do not. AT birth is acquired by an act of man. Without it, you would not be a citizen.
BY birth is acquired by nature... irregardless of any act of Man.
---
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've shown you this applies to residents, not temporary or transient aliens.
Between alien friends, who are temporary subjects, and subjects naturalized or natural born, a species of subjects intermediate is known to the law of England. They are distinguished by the appellation of denizens. The power of denization is a high and incommunicable portionu of the prerogative royal. A denizen is received into the nation, like a person who is dropt from the clouds. He may acquire rights, but he cannot inherit them, not even from his own parent: he may transmit rights to his children, who are born after his letters patent of denization; but not to those who were born before.
James Wilson , Collected Works, vol. 2, Lectures on Law
-----
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?
Seriously? Have you forgotten all the quotes both of posted saying 'who HAS become or WILL become' entitled to citizenship? Passing the Act in 1795 is what made the people who already HAD become citizens of their respective states citizens of the United States. They weren't naturalized at THEIR birth, they were naturalized at the nation's birth.
------
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.
Again, I've given legal sources otherwise. Not to mention the concept itself is ludicrous. Thinking the Founders would be so vigilant to put the natural-born clause in the Constitution then turn around and mean that qualification was actually just run across the border and squat is just beyond insulting to their intelligence...and pretty much everyone else's, too.
---
I merely contend you don't understand what those were.
Oh, I understand them just fine. I just can't understand if you can't comprehend them, or if you just don't want to comprehend them. They're quite plain.
Irregardless, your constant refutation does not constitute facts, nor does your ignoring facts given constitute an honest discussion, so I will leave you to your own devices.
Have a nice day.