The article you reference begins with multiple fallacies:
Senator Lyman Trumbull never made the case that the children of resident aliens were not natural born citizens. His words quoted referred to INDIANS born into their own tribes, which were always regarded as nations separate from and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Likewise, Senator Jacob Howard was referring to Indians as well. His quote in the article referenced clearly does not mean what the author claims it means.
All of this, so far, has been discussed, discussed, and re-discussed.
The author then misuses another quote, from 1873:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this [fourteenth] amendment . . . Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.
The same jurisdiction that that Attorney General refers to applied both to citizens and resident aliens.
When he speaks of "aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad," it is clear that he is referring to persons born US citizens in the United States, who have gone off and naturalized into another country.
In fact, the author of those words specifically SAYS THAT, just before he says the quote misused by your author:
So does your author quote the Attorney General when he says, "ACTUAL NATURALIZATION ABROAD WOULD SEEM TO BE NECESSARY TO MAKE A PERSON BORN IN THE UNITES STATES AN ALIEN?"
No. Of course not. He quotes him from the next paragraph, where he can twist his words into saying something that the Attorney General did NOT say.
This is typical birther-style word-twisting BS.
Wilson's quote about temporary sojourners is the kind of thing that makes me say that there is SOME case (albeit weak) regarding children of aliens TEMPORARILY in the country. And by TEMPORARILY, I don't mean "RESIDENT."
However, he MISQUOTES WILSON:
The bogus author's quote of Wilson:
"We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments."
What Wilson ACTUALLY SAID, on the floor of the House, on March 1, 1866:
""We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: 'Every person born within the United States, its Territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.'"
So even Wilson, MISquoted in your article, says that the children born on US soil of resident alien parents, are natural born citizens and eligible to the Presidency!
And he says it MAY be that the children of temporary sojourners are an exception.
I've said pretty much the same thing.
As far as States passing laws, the author doesn't even mention any other States than New York and the District of Columbia - which is not a State. New York passed such a law in 1859, some 72 years after the adoption of the Constitution and LONG after our practices regarding natural born citizenship was established. The author presents no evidence at all that any other State passed a law regarding the children of transient aliens at any time earlier than the law passed by New York.
He didn't have to. It's common knowledge that several states did not recognize children of aliens to be citizens. For example, Virginia law in 1779 deemed infants wheresoever born to non-citizens to be aliens.
The U.S. didn't even have a birthright citizenship law until 1866, which clearly states: "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"
We know for a fact the intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction' requirement because Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull, who played a pivotal role in the passage of the 14th Amendment according to the U.S. Senate's own history, declared it as such: "the provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."