I find the observation made by Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court in the case of United States v. Rhodes (1866), that “...[B]irth and allegiance go together”... to be wrong.
Under English common law, birth and allegiance do go together, but not in a Republic made of the ‘Consent to be Governed.’
This point also supports the notion that ‘natural citizenship’ is citizenship acquired as a natural right by natural law at birth. It is not citizenship acquired by the state, either at birth or after.
As far as jurisdiction goes, Congress sets jurisdiction. As long as birth occurs within the sole jurisdiction of the United States, they are natural citizens.
You have this concept wrong. It is not consent "to be" governed, it's consent "of the" governed.
"Consent to be governed" defines sheeple content to let Big Government make decisions for them.
"Consent of the governed" defines a people who watch over a government that has been given delegated limited powers.
As to the former, the sheeple are indifferent to "birth an allegiance."
As to the latter, it is directly because of "birth and allegiance" that the people keep a watchful eye on the government to keep it from straying from the first principles that defines us as a nation.
-PJ
I find the observation made by Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court in the case of United States v. Rhodes (1866), that “...[B]irth and allegiance go together”... to be wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion and the Court is entitled to its opinion. Theirs is the opinion that matters.