Jus Soli vs Jus Sanguinis -two types of citizenship

A “natural born subject” is not equivalent to a “natural born citizen”.  Why?  Because of Royalty.  A natural born subject of the King was anyone born within his domain if they weren’t born to foreign representatives or to the women of foreign invaders, or mere foreign visitors who went into labor before returning across the sea to their homeland.  The right of the King to view all persons born within his controlled realm as his subjects was based on the principle of the Divine Right Of Kings.  That philosophy viewed the King’s authority as being divinely ordained and his rights to be supreme over all.  Kings were only constrained  by the moral laws of the Church and the restrictions imposed by the nobility class which was enraged at the ego-maniacal excesses of monarchs who were corrupted absolutely by absolute power.
In the newly formed United States, there was the principle of individual freedom, which replaced the Divine Right of Kings.  As a result there was no equivalent in U.S. governance, -no Divine Right of Presidents, nor Congress.  So subjects of the kings were not the equivalent of citizens of a free democratic republic.  Such citizens were not property of the government, they did not belong to the government, rather, the government belonged to them!  Just the opposite of the Monarch’s view of his subjects.
Just as free citizens and subjects of Britain were born into the same class as their parents, inheriting citizenship by descent from a citizen father, so it became the common law principle in the United States.  Prior to that point, colonial subjects were like the peasant class in Britain which was bound to the land that they “rented” from the Lord of the Manor estate.  They were the debtor class and were not privileged with the same freedom of the un-indebted classes of citizens (nobility) and subjects (commoners).  The colonists were viewed by the British aristocracy as property of the realm by jus soli, since they were born on the property of the Empire, just as children of the peasants were property of the soil on which they were born because they inherited the debt of their parents, a debt that could take a lifetime to escape from, if ever.

So, when one talks about “common law” one must distinguish between that which applied to the peasant/colonial class of subjects, or the common law that applied to freemen of Britain who enjoyed the rights secured for them over the centuries at the expense of the unlimited rights of the Crown.  Jus Soli was not a principle that applied in common law to the freeman class but only to the indebted class and its children.  They were illiterate third-class members of the realm, living and dying in the area where they were born unless they could join the military or runaway and escape as mariners.  But children of immigrants were deemed subjects of the Kingdom by the principle that they were born on the King’s land, so their father’s citizenship was void.
Jus sanguinis, inheritance of the father’s social/political position was the principle that applied by natural law to the nobility and the common man.  Their standing was determined by who their father was and they didn’t inherit a lower nor a higher social/political position than he had achieved unless he fell into the debtor class and was bereft of benefactors to help him solve his debt problems.
Colonial common law was generally the same as British common law except on that one subject of what ones status was at birth.  Was it determined by the principle that all born within a realm are tied to that realm/property and bound to it for life, (with a slight transmutation from being property to being citizens) or was one a citizen because one inherited the same status/station/identity/nature/citizenship as ones father?  Was one the son of a freeman or the son of a bonded servant, or worse, a slave?
Those are the questions that never enter the minds of those who throughout our history have assumed that the colonial model was a reasonable, national and universal model of citizenship, without knowing its dark and oppressive origin.   An origin that believed in human ownership and the Divine Right of Kings to hold absolute power over all within their realm, including all children born to them.
So after having ones understanding reformed, one comes to the realization that they are not a United States citizen because they were born somewhere within U.S. borders but because they were born to U.S. citizens and inherited their citizenship from them, just as leopards inherit their spots from their parents, just a races inherit their characteristics from their parents.  So it is that natural citizenship comes by inheriting ones membership from members of the national group.  If the parents aren’t natural members, then neither are their children, and they must be granted membership by consent of the natural members.  They must be natural-ized so that they fit in and can freely join in.  But they were not born as natural members, but became members by permission.  But no member who is a member by permission is ever allowed to one day become Chief.  That is reserved for security reasons to only those who were born as members via birth to members.