“The only difference between common law and natural law is one relates to subjects while the other relates to citizens.”

And with that, I think we reached the stage where any further discussion is pointless.

Onto common law. British common law of 1800 no longer governs on its own force. If it’s preserved, it’s preserved by explicit incorporation into the Constitution or statute. The common law was received from England subject to legislative amendment, clarification, and repudiation. Assuming arguendo that British common law on “natural born citizenship” was received and remains undisturbed, British common law did not speak to dual citizenship, since the concept (as in, the ability to legally hold two citizenships) was not extant at the birth of the Union.

Souter’s dissent in Alden v. Maine, available here, has a nice, long, and stirring account of what natural law and common law are, in the context of sovereign immunity. If you’re going to bandy those terms about please learn what they mean. It’s clear Donofrio didn’t.

“Jeff, you seem to be a little confused here. First you pull out Blackstone in an attempt to use him as support for your definition of “natural born”. When it turns out that he actually says the complete opposite of what you want him to, suddenly you drop him like he’s on fire and pull out de Vattel instead. ”

I am not confused. Both laws clearly follow Natural Law, i.e. LAW OF NATIONS, i.e. Common Law.

And that law is the same then as it is in many countries today, including the U.K. and U.S. (NBC vs Citizen)

Citizens inherit citizenship from the father. Citizen, i.e. Allegiance, of the father is passed down to the son.

This is the same for Vattel. This is the same for Blackstone.

The only difference between common law and natural law is one relates to subjects while the other relates to citizens.

One is renouncable. The other is not. That’s why both are key to Article II.

I can do a side-by-side comparison of both if it will help you understand.

However, I don’t think this has made your position any stronger, because the juxtaposition of Blackstone and de Vattel actually highlights a very important issue here: That these two contemporary writers have a diametrically opposed interpretation of what exactly it is that gives a person his nationality – Blackstone’s jus soli versus de Vattel’s jus sanguinis. In other words, both of these interpretations existed in the 18th century, and both of them may have influenced the Founding Fathers. To determine which one precisely, to the extent that’s possible at all, one would have to do a comprehensive study of all the source materials surrounding the genesis of the Constitution – letters, commentaries, Convention records, and so on.

Although this would obviously be rather a complex project, I would suggest that it would lead to significantly better results than your current approach. And if you’re lucky, someone may already have done it for you.