I'm not so sure about that ... it would seem that Jefferson was arguing that, based soley on a persons birth on the soil of a foreign country - this would lead to this persons loayalty to such forms of government as were in force at the time of his birth/upbringing in that country or the absolute opposite - but NOT to the principles on which our country was founded. And further, that this would be a danger to our very foundations.
Under the same logic, anyone born and raised in the United States would learn OUR principles of government.
IMHO - this argument pertains more to immigration itself as to whether someone in country should be granted citizenship based on "birth on soil" - IOW, get the illegals out (and keep them out!) and the question of whether someone born here is a citizen tends to, mostly, solve itself. Control exactly WHO is allowed to immigrate - only allow those immigrants who profess an understanding of our form of government and the principles on which the country was founded. Visitors are permitted, but receive no special status if, and when, the hapen to deliver a child on our soil ...
The laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britian at the time of the Constitutional Convention in regard to citizenship were the exception rather than the rule in Western Civilization insofar as it claimed the allegiance of newborns while also prohibiting expatriation for a lifetime. Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers were concerned about the ability of a foreign sovereign to command the involuntary allegiance of persons who have attempted to expatriate. It was this very issue which became a compelling cause of the War of 1812 where the United States sought to defend its seamen, merchant marine, and citizens from being seized on the High Seas, in foreign ports, and elsewhere by British and other governments asserting supremacy over the allegiances of U.S. ships, crews, and passengers.
The newly independent states variously recognized a mix of European citizenship practices and laws, some of which did and did not recognize citizenship by right of birth on the soil of a state. This continued for a number of decades into the early 19th Century.
No it wouldn't. Education wasn't free for all at that time and many immigrants educated their children at home & taught them the customs of the parents home country. Public education was not a part of the system. Most schools were run by the churches.
IMHO - this argument pertains more to immigration itself as to whether someone in country should be granted citizenship based on “birth on soil”
Jefferson said: The following are the most remarkable alterations(to the English law) proposed..and then went on state this:
To define with precision the rules whereby aliens should become citizens, and citizens make themselves aliens
What part of “define with precision” do you not understand?
May 1779 Virginia Papers 2:476–78
Be it enacted by the General Assembly,...and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth or who migrate hither, their father...shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth...And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
IOW, there were only 2 ways to become a citizen, you were either born to parentS(plural)who were already citizens at the time of the birth or you were naturalized. You were either natural born or you were naturalized upon the naturalization of the parents. You obviously are lacking objective reasoning which Jefferson & Wilson spoke of as a requisite to interpreting the constitution & laws.