[DiogenesLamp]

My quote was accurate and contextually sufficient.

Sure. If you want to MISLEAD PEOPLE about what Joseph Story actually meant. It's not "contextually sufficient" if you want them to have a correct understanding.

Mamma Texan's filling in of the rest of the quote demonstrates conclusively that Joseph Story did not regard birth on the soil to be the exclusive criteria for acquiring US Citizenship. He explicitly says that the Allegiance of the parents apply.

You just Lost Joseph Story as someone you can claim supports your side. He certainly does not, and that quote proves it.

100,000 children of British Loyalists born after July 4,1776. You would have thought someone would notice that, and it appears that Justice Story certainly did.

Justice Joseph Story:

Welcome to our side. You are in very good company. Meet your old collegues John Marshall and Bushrod Washington. We now have three Kings instead of two.

[Fantasywriter]

I don’t know if you saw this, but TheBirtherReport had a post re: Vattel yesterday:

‘Unearthed: Does This Further Prove Founders Used Vattel’s Natural Born Citizen Definition!?’

Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/02/unearthed-does-this-further-prove.html#orbCUQ6flSMopVHA.99

Some interesting research in the comments section.

[Fantasywriter]

If go to the link, pay special attention to the comments of a poster going by the screen-nmae of ‘Gail Evoy.’;

[CpnHook]

You just Lost Joseph Story as someone you can claim supports your side. He certainly does not, and that quote proves it.

LOL. Your reading comprehension on legal matters is abysmal.

That quote addresses the situation arising during the period the British occupied New York. There was no American government then in place to which the parents would be deemed to owe even temporary allegiance. (See Calvin's Case). So under those circumstances, a child born to British parents would be born a British subject.

But in the period where New York was under American jurisdiction, Story indicates he would be born a U.S. citizen (despite his British-subject parents). Because under those circumstances his parents would be deemed to owe an allegiance to the sovereign holding jurisdiction.

And note the majority opinion determined that John Ingliss was born a citizen: ""I shall therefore answer the second question in the affirmative -- that is that he was entitled to inherit as a citizen, born of the State of New York."

There you have a direct jus soli application. And there you have a majority opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Marshall. So Joseph Story is still very much in my camp. That's why his concurring opinion is quoted by Horace Gray in WKA. (You would have known that if you had read Gray's opinion).)