Ahem-
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
-----
For those of us who prefer actually having clickable sources for our positions; Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor
Your previous post was rather cherry-picked concerning Story's opinion:
With these principles in view, let us now come to the consideration of the question of alienage in the present case. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. 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,
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.
If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth, then he was born a British subject.
The time-line here is very important as he is ONLY a citizen if his birth occurred during the time when the area of his birth was in contention....from the time of the Declaration of Independence to the end of the Revolution.
UNLESS his parents themselves became American citizens after the Revolution, he was STILL A BRITISH SUBJECT.
Your post insinuates Story's opionion was that anyone born on American soil was automatically an American citizen..... and that is certainly not the case.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
The children of foreign diplomats and occupying forces have always been excluded from jus soli. If you read the debates on the civil rights bill and the 14th amendment, you will see several Senators, such as Senators Williams, Morrill, Trumbull, Cowan, etc. take it as given that the children of aliens except as excluded (children of foreign diplomats, etc.) would be natural born citizens by this amendment.
Here is Senator Jacob Howard's speech introducing the 14th amendment:
The effect of this clause was to constitute ipso facto the citizens of each one of the original States citizens of the United States. And how did they antecedently become citizens of the several States? By birth or by naturalization. They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made such by naturalization; [emphasis added]You will note two categories only - birth or naturalization.
The time-line here is very important as he is ONLY a citizen if his birth occurred during the time when the area of his birth was in contention....from the time of the Declaration of Independence to the end of the Revolution.
UNLESS his parents themselves became American citizens after the Revolution, he was STILL A BRITISH SUBJECT.
If you read down to the portion marked Page 28 U. S. 167, you find this
To constitute a citizen, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. This is clear from the whole reasoning in Calvin's Case, 7 Co. 6, a. 18, a. b. [Footnote 11] Now in no just sense can the demandant be deemed born within the ligeance of the State of New York, if, at the time of his birth, his parents were in a territory then occupied by her enemiesSo it was not that his parents hadn't elected American citizenship, but rather than he was born in occupied territory, controlled by Britain. In effect, he was not born in the United States. This is also seen page 128 U.S. 189 where he would not be a US citizen "If he was born after the British took possession of New York, and before the evacuation on 25 November, 1783".