Nothing was overlooked except perhaps by you by ignoring the part BEFORE what you italicized about how it made no difference and was explained BECAUSE the parents had manifest an intention of becoming permanent members of the state. BTW, NY had very liberal citizenship laws and generally declared anyone born there to be a citizen, which is not necessarily true in other states. This is manifest from the Lynch v. Clarke decision.
Read a little further and see why birth after September 15th makes him a British subject:
Wrong. You don't have to read any further because the part that is quoted acknowledges that the citizenship was based on what the parents ELECTED to do and whether they ADHERED to their native allegiance. Your own "further" quote, says the parents JOINED the British troops. The child was NOT going to be a British subject simply on the basis of the territory being occupied but on the ELECTION of the parents to remain or regain British citizenship.
There are many. here’s one, and and another and even plain old Webster’s dictionary. The English system is also explained in WKA
My comment about the poor argument was in direct reference to the Rogers v. Bellei case that was cited. There's NOTHING in that decision that says jus soli = natural born. But it matters not, because your own links don't even say this. As for the English system, ponder this: If Justice Gray believed the English system prevailed, even prior to the 14th amendment, why did he make a point of saying citizenship in the Minor case was decided on BOTH jus soli and jus sanguinis criteria??
there’s also NGUYEN v. INS where Justice Scalia questioned the appealing lawyer
Yeah, Scalia is ASKING questions. He's not making any declarations of fact.
I may have missed it, but where does it say they must be permanently domiciled?
It's part of the opening question and the conclusion of the decision:
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Gray elaborates on residence and domicil elsewhere in the decision and how it connects to the subject clause of the 14th amendment. Here are a couple of the pertinent quotes. There are others that say basically the same thing.
It necessarily follows that persons born in China, subjects of the Emperor of China but domiciled in the United States, having been adjudged, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins to be within the jurisdiction of the State within the meaning of the concluding sentence, must be held to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the first sentence of this section of the Constitution ...
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
By your standard of demanding the exact words "jus soli," Gray does not say that the Minor case was decided on "jus soli and jus sanguinus" criteria. Gray describes the decision
the decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.but does not say these are necessary criteria to NBC.
More rebuttal next post, and then to work for the day.
It's part of the opening question and the conclusion of the decision: The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States,
Composition fallacy again. He is explaining the facts of the case, "the question presented." He does not say these are required for anyone to be a citizen by birth. You even quote the part where he says "while domiciled here" meaning it does not have to be permanent. And again, Senator Rubio's parents were permanently domiciled here.