Modern nationality law began in the 1700’s, changing with the age of exploration and colonization and the decline of feudal monarchies.

The jus feudalis ‘feudal’ law of jus soli (law of the soil) was replaced with jus sanguinis (law of blood), and this new standard was adopted by the United States, Great Britain and France.

A significant case relying on the jus soli, place of birth citizenship applied in common law, was ‘The Case of Mr. Smith,’ argued by James Madison. Madison won his case, that a colonial born child who grew up in England, his parents never allegiant to the United States, could claim the right to political office only for the fact he was born in one of the colonies, i.e., native born. He and his parents never naturalized or declared allegiance to the Declaration of Independence, as they were living in England. https://paraleaglenm.com/2011/04/29/the-first-eligibility-case-1789/

That case was decided just before the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790, which if applied would have denied Mr. Smith not only his candidacy but assumed U.S. citizenship. The 1790 Act relied entirely upon the nationality and allegiance of the father which the minor child acquired by inheritance, by blood (jus sanguinis). As the father declared allegiance, so followed the children. If the U.S. allegiant father was involved in business or political station in a foreign nation, ‘over the seas’ as they put it, the child still acquired the U.S. citizenship of the father. This was, and still is, a ‘natural born citizen’ as Article II of the Constitution requires for a presidential candidate.

As for the mother, women in general, the laws required the wife not only take on the surname of the father but his national identity and religion. This was known as the Doctrine of Family Unity–essentially an acknowledgement of the biblical advice for a marriage partnership to be ‘evenly yoked.’ 2 Corinthians 6:14 states, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?”

However, modern law sees (or corrupted) ‘family unity’ as a mechanism for what we now call Family Reunification, which makes a ‘birthright citizen’ baby an ‘anchor’ for daisy-chain migration for extended non-citizen and alien family members. For a discussion on the evolution of women and naturalization, see https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html

In 1866, the Civil Rights Act guaranteed U.S. citizenship to children of freed slaves (and Indians taxed) and all rights thereof, if they were born in the United States and the father had no ‘subjection to any foreign power,’ i.e., was ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This law was elevated from legislation to a constitutional amendment in 1869, the 14th Amendment.

In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court unconstitutionally created ‘native born’ citizenship rights, or what we now call ‘birthright citizenship.’ In this case, a Chinese man, Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to Chinese parents, was subject to the Chinese Emperor. His parents returned him to China as a minor, but as an adult he tried to re-enter the United States. He was denied entry, but claimed rights as he was ‘native born,’ a condition or status nowhere in statute. Wong was not a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but the court somehow granted him native born citizenship in an unconstitutional ‘revision’ to U.S. legislated act.

In 1906, a Swedish man naturalized as a U.S. citizen and his wife gave birth to Marie Elg, a ‘natural born citizen.’ She was ‘native born’ under the Wong Kim Ark case above, but as her father was a naturalized U.S. citizen, she was also a ‘natural born’ citizen. The father repatriated to Sweden with his family, which made his wife and minor children also Swedish citizens. Years later, as an adult, Marie Elg returned to the United States and tried to repatriate claiming she was a citizen, but there were no provisions in the law except formal application for naturalization. You see, she had abandoned her U.S. ‘native’ and ‘natural born’ citizenships as a minor. The court allowed her repatriation, but there was no statute codified yet to make this possible. But this was to come. Again, I refer to the archives/gov article on women and naturalization linked above.

Over the years, the issue of mixed marriages continued to create problems in immigration and naturalization. There was a time, in the early 1900’s, when foreign men married U.S. citizen women, which forced their foreign nationality upon the women and their children. In cases where the husband abandoned the wife, the woman had problems repatriating to the United State with her children. In 1922 the congress passed The Cable Act, recognizing the ‘maiden’ citizenship of the woman.

This law increased in complexity in the 1940 and 1952 Immigration and Nationality Acts. In fact, if not for these revisions Ted Cruz would not be able to claim being a ‘citizen at birth,’ and Barack Hussein Obama would not have regained his lost citizenship when he fulfilled the statutory 5-years of continuous residency by age 22. Both men claim their statutory citizenships through their mother make them constitutionally eligible to the presidency, but they are incorrect. https://paraleaglenm.com/2010/01/21/a-timeline-of-barack-hussein-obamas-nationality-and-citizenships/

Then the law had to consider children of U.S. servicemen ‘marrying’ women and having children overseas. That added a new section to the INA.

But the law has been torturously mangled in modern times due to massive illegal immigration, immigrants attracted to liberalized social services and healthcare. Plyler vs Doe (1982) saw a federal court mandating the states to provide social services and education to illegal aliens, even if they couldn’t afford it. Under the Biden Administration, Alejandro Mayorkas created ‘parole’ programs and undermined existing rules for asylum by issuing Social Security Numbers to illegal aliens, delaying enforcement of law under Notices to Appear. This practice, not supported by existing statute, has undermined our ability to verify voter registrations for citizenship.

That and ‘sanctuary states’ issuing drivers’ licenses abrogated immigration law in order to create a massive population of de facto citizens, who have even been encouraged to vote. Their numbers have been counted in the decennial census and added illegal Electoral Votes to several states, giving Democrat candidates an unfair advantage in federal elections, essentially giving an eight elector head start, or more!