The Fact that the state legislature could and DID overturn Lynch v Clarke demonstrates that the theory underpinning Lynch v Clarke was incorrect.
The fact that a State legislature could pass a law prohibiting citizenship for transient aliens also overturns YOUR theory.
"Also?" Aren't you stretching the point a bit?
Julia Lynch was arguably the child of "transient" aliens, and she was found by Vice Chancellor to be a United States citizen. A New York State law, at some point prior to 1860 or so, said:
The citizens of the state are:
1. All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls;
2. All persons born out of this state, who are citizens of the United States, and resident within this state.
Did you get what they just said?
EVERYBODY born in the State of New York, and residing there, was a citizen of that State, except for the children of TRANSIENT aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls.
So according to New York law, the children of RESIDENT aliens, born in that State, were born CITIZENS of that State.
I've said repeatedly that there's a case to be made that children of tourist aliens are, or should not be, not natural born citizens of the United States.
The fact that the State of New York (which is only a State situation, as you reminded me of the court case case Lynch v. Clarke) excluded children of TRANSIENT aliens, and INCLUDED children of NON-TRANSIENT aliens, in STATE citizenship, doesn't make your case.
In fact, it argues against it. The State of New York absolutely accepted the children born in New York of resident aliens, who were not themselves citizens of either New York or the United States, as being BORN citizens of the State of New York.
So the law you refer to shows that the State of New York never required citizen parents, as long as the parents were simply resident, in order for a child born there to be a citizen of the State.
Similarly, the United States never required citizen parents for a person to be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least as long as the parents were resident in the United States, and possibly even if they weren't.
Julia Lynch was arguably the child of "transient" aliens, and she was found by Vice Chancellor to be a United States citizen. A New York State law, at some point prior to 1860 or so, said:
The specifics of the case are immaterial to the point. The New York Legislature passed a law in violation of the Premise upon which Lynch v Clarke was based. The Court said English Common law applied, the Legislature said "no it didn't."
So according to New York law, the children of RESIDENT aliens, born in that State, were born CITIZENS of that State.
I've said repeatedly that there's a case to be made that children of tourist aliens are, or should not be, not natural born citizens of the United States.
Now you are starting to get it. Slaves were permanent residents without citizenship. Wong Kim Ark's parents made their home here but could not become citizens because of the Treaty the US had with China.
So the law you refer to shows that the State of New York never required citizen parents, as long as the parents were simply resident, in order for a child born there to be a citizen of the State.
Permanently resident. An immigrant, more or less.
Different states had different requirements. Some were easier than others. They had control over whom would be a citizen of their own states, but the status of being a "natural citizen" of the United States (i.e. Federal citizen) was not subject to state laws. (except in terms of who was grandfathered in.) It was based on Natural law, as was our own independence. The argument for US Independence was completely contrary to common law, or the Law of England. It's only basis for legitimacy was "natural law". Under Common law it was forbidden.