In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth [20]. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen [41].
Thus, the modern-day consensus opinion (that birthplace alone confers natural born citizenship), though widely held, appears to be an assumption, not settled law or established fact.
Both the cases you cited are completely distinguishable. Inglis v. Trustees doesn’t apply for two reasons (1) it was decided before the 14th Amendment was ratified so it cannot say anything about the meaning of the 14th Amendment. (2) It was about someone who was born in the Colonies and left before the Revolution, never to return. Thus the Court held that the person never became an American Citizen because he had never lived in America - just the British Colonies.
ELk v. Wilkins is more relevant. However, it still does not hold what you think. It is about an American Indian who was born on a reservation and then later renounced his tribal membership and wanted to claim U.S. citizenship. At that time the reservations were treated like foreign countries and were dealt with via treaties not U.S. law. Therefore, he was found not to have been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Our first Naturalization Act of 1790 established “natural born”[To children born overseas] back in the day.
Key word is citizens, not citizen, ie one parent.
That’s absolutely correct.
A ‘child’ at the time of birth is not subject to any allegiance other than that of the legal parent or guardian.
The fact is that ‘birthright citizenship’ has been squashed from view by political leaders and because of this cover provided to this false notion, immigration attorneys have marked it as a LOOPHOLE and made it their cash cow business, promulgating it as a lie that it is completely legal and constitutional, and furthering their abuse of it by joining it with Ted Kennedy’s 1965 chain immigration reform so that an anchor baby becomes a beachhead for an invasion of illegals.