The children of ambassadors tho born abroad in a foreign country are considered as natural born subjects because their parents are not supposed to owe a natural allegiance to the government to whom they re sent but that which sends them and of course their children must owe allegiance to the same power. The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.

The people are considered as aliens born in some foreign country as inhabitants of some neighbouring state in the union or natural born subjects born within the state. It is an established maxim received by all political writers that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie that binds the subject to the state and in consequence of his obedience he is entitled to protection. This principle is founded in the fitness of things and nature of government. When man comes into existence he is incapable of defending himself and wholly dependent on government for protection he is therefore bound by the strongest principles to be faitlifiil to that government to which he is indebted for such benefits.

That must be why Obama chose to obtain a Connecticut-issued SSN! That way, Connecticut state law would apply! Brilliant!

That must be why Obama chose to obtain a Connecticut-issued SSN! That way, Connecticut state law would apply! Brilliant!

Source: Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut: in six books, Printed by John Byrne, for the author, 1795

It seems to me that the book in the original had a typo. Shouldn't it -- by the reasoning in the passage itself -- say "The children of ambassadors tho born abroad in a foreign country are NOT considered as natural born subjects..."?

Isn't he just restating Blackstone here:

"And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador....The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... hips1.html

It is called the long s and was used inside a word wfile the short s was at the end or beginning

http://babelstone.blogspot.com/2006/06/ ... ong-s.html

The v is also confusing

It seems to me that the book in the original had a typo. Shouldn't it -- by the reasoning in the passage itself -- say "The children of ambassadors tho born abroad in a foreign country are NOT considered as natural born subjects..."?

No, they are talking about natural born to the country which sent them abroad

May I borrow steal your excellent analysis...