17th century English common law, per Lord Coke (Calvin’s case)
A native-born may be an alien-born by foreign allegiance.
Alienigena est alienae gentis seu alience ligeantiae, qui etiam |[16 b] dicitur peregrinus, alienus, exoticus, extraneus, &c. Extraneus est subditus, qui extra terram, i.e. potestatem regis natus est.151
[151. ][Ed.: An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance, and is also called peregrinus (foreigner), alien, exotic, stranger, etc. A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power.]
Unless born “under the ligeance of a subject”, a child native-born in England, cannot be an English “subject.
Ergo: native-birth alone was not sufficient to make an English “natural born subject”.
And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.
Ergo: if the father was not a subject, then his child, although native-born, could not be a subject.
Calvin was an English “natural born subject”, but Calvin was “naturalized.
Lord Coke (Calvin’s case)…
Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right
So where exactly is it mentioned in the 17th English common law that native-birth alone suffices to make an English “natural born subject”????
Can one of the “experts” here show where?