“No, everyone doesn’t have to reference positive law to be a citizen of something.”
I’ve revisised my position a bit, and added that custom in addition to positive law can make for a citizen. I suppose who was a British subject depended on the common law, which you’d call positive. But there’s nothing like the U.S. Constitution over there, even though they have what they call constitutional law. They mean something different and less concrete by their “constitution.”
That aside, there were all sorts of governments in history out of mind that never had written laws, nor common law, though one would have to say they had citizens. The point is, there has to be something, either through positive law or custom, to be a citizen of before you can be a citizen of something.
“If that were so then there would be no such thing as natural law which you admit exists.”
I do admit it exists, or at least I pretend like it does. I think it’s best to act as if there were a natural law, even if there isn’t. But that’s beside the point and may unnecessarily prejudice you against me. Yes, there is a natural law, and there are natural rights to bear arms, speak freely, peacably assemble, petition the government for redress of grievances, earn a living, own property, etc.
What I don’t think exists are natural citizenship rights. I cannot claim U.S. citizenship status by the laws of nature because the U.S. does not exist by nature. The government respecting my right to free speech is correct, because that right precedes social contract. In order for me to be a U.S. citizen, contrariwise, society must have previously organized itself into the United States.