It was well before. 14th amendment, and adjudicated by the Supreme Court in the 1898.
From Wikipedia:
In 1898 the meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark regarding children of Chinese citizens born in United States. This time the Supreme Court ruled that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli or "birthright citizenship"— does not exist in most of Europe or Asia, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas. Since 1898 the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof has been interpreted to mean that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth in United States automatically grants citizenship. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that a person born within the territorial boundaries of the United States is eligible for birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of his or her parents. The only exceptions to this rule identified in Wong Kim Ark concern diplomats, enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States, and members of Native American tribes.
It was years later that the exclusion of Native Americans was eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
It goes on to say that the question of the citizenship the US born children of *illegal* immigrants has not been directly tested at the Supreme Court level, although US laws assume that such children are birthright citizens.
So, if a person was born in Hawaii, and at least one of his parents was in the US legally, he'd definitely a citizen (Unless his parents are in one of the excepted classes, mostly Diplomats and foreign military (who unless they are occupying US territory, are often officially diplomats, and often legal spies (Military attaches))
OK. Good points. Thank you. I have not made up my mind at all about the BC issue, but something isn’t right. I think it may be just something mundane or embarassing.