http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...itle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27 It appears that it has become generally accepted per English common law that a child born in England to an alien father = a natural born subject. But is that the whole truth? Has this notion been cherry-picked to suit an agenda? Here's what Lord Coke (Calvin's case) said on the matter, where it appears that it was the 'subject' (ka - 'citizen' in USA) status of the parent father, that was the primary, essential quality required to make a child of said parent father, an English 'natural born subject'. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=...itle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27 Note that their were two essential qualities required to make one a 'natural born subject'. (****Calvin was held to be a 'natural born subject') Note that their were two essential qualities required to make one a 'natural born subject'. Note that if the alien-born, parent father was not a 'subject' (due to lacking ligeance/obedience) then his child, even if born in England could not be a 'subject' let alone a 'natural born subject'. The word 'ligeance' may be expressed as 'obedience'. So it appears that for a child, who is born in England, to be a 'natural born subject', the parent father of said child must be a 'subject', for that child to be 'born under the ligeance of a subject'. Born in the land, without any consideration of the parent father's subject/citizen status, is NOT sufficient to make a 'natural born' subject/citizen. .