You are an idiot. In dicta he used it. In the decision, he did not. He deliberately chose not to add that extra word into the decision. And as I have pointed out, discussing Wong Kim Ark when all the evidence lies at the other end of the Century is a fools game. Of course you want to play it.
You want me to address your Story quote? Let's look at it.
“Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign…. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted.
Americans don't have a Sovereign. They eschewed the principle of perpetual allegiance to the King. In any case, Story was a well known Anglophile when it comes to law. He was con-temporarily chastised for it. He was also not a member of the Constitutional Convention or one of the State's ratifying convention, so he has no first hand knowledge of what was argued and decided at those events. John Marshall and Bushrod Washington were and did. This is that issue of "Provenance" which you keep stumbling over. Story has no Provenance for his claims. He was not a member of the deciding circle. Furthermore, Story had the same reasons as Rawle for arguing the English Law for citizenship instead of Vattel. The Vattel version of Natural law gives him no support for his efforts to abolish slavery. English Law did.
If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”
And yet the history has proven otherwise. From what I have been able to discover, approximately 100,000 children were born to British Loyalists after July 4, 1776, and before September 3, 1783. They were recognized as being British Subjects by both the US Government, and by the British Crown. Again, Accepted government policy and demonstrable history does not agree with Story's assertion in this quote. His assertion has ~ a hundred thousand holes in it.
I'm not going to bother addressing the rest of your idiocy. I don't feel like spending much time on you.
What you, like all other Birthers who seek to remain consciously clueless about judicial method and terminology, fail to grasp is that what is binding for stare decisis purposes is not just the decision in the case, but what's termed the ratio decidendi -- the key legal points and rationale of the decision. Gray's analysis in Parts II and III of this decision -- where he states that the English common law jus soli was the "same rule" that existed from the time of the Colonies to the Declaration and under the Constitution and beyond -- is part of his reasoning. It was that "rule" that was incorporated into the 14th Amendment's language "born . . . in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
So Gray's 32 usages of "natural born" are part of the essential rationale. It's not dicta.
And as I have pointed out, discussing Wong Kim Ark when all the evidence lies at the other end of the Century is a fools game.
At the other end of the century? LOL. You are helpless. Swift (1795), Tucker (1803 -- who stated U.S. law was "accordanct" with Blackstone's jus soli view), Kent (1826), Rawle (1829), Story (1830) are all very much early century.
And at the end of the century when the first and greatest SCOTUS citizenship case is argued, how do your sources fare? Marshall is cited, but only by the majority and only as to jurisdiction and naturalization. Bushrod Washington is completely ignored. Samuel Roberts? LOL.
So much for the "provenance" of your sources: on this issue they impress you, but you alone.
Story was a well known Anglophile when it comes to law.
As was everyone else, since they all were steeped in Blackstone. Blackstone, as you may recall from the Donald Lutz study, was the No. 2 most-cited author in the Revolutionary to post-Constitutional period. Vattel? Oh, right, he came in about No. 30.
Story was without question one of our most influential jurists:
One of the towering figures in U.S. Legal History, Story shaped U.S. law both as a judge and as the author of a series of legal treatises. Some legal commentators believe Story's treatises were as influential in the development of nineteenth-century U.S. law as the works of the English jurists Sir William Blackstone and Sir Edward Coke had been earlier. Source
This is why in WKA both the majority and dissent were trying to claim Story in their camp. It's just that the majority had the clear jus soli language from Inglis
Your attempt to waive Story aside is just one more bit of hilarity.