I do not see Leo’s direct conclusion(s) and find myself left to draw my own. Is this to suppose an indirect inference into the intent of the Federalist Papers rendering “…British common law rule of jus soli governed citizenship from the very genesis of the United States” invalid?
It is to point out that the rules for being considered a citizen of a State are not necessarily the same as those required to be a Federal citizen.
State citizens could be created by Jus Soli,(as in Virginia after 1792. Prior to 1792, they had to be Jus Sanguinus to be a citizen of Virginia. New York passed a law in 1845 requiring Jus Sanguinus to be a citizen.) but apparently Jus Sanguinus (or naturalization) is required for possessing Federal Citizenship.