There is a subtlety here that you are not grasping. Being born here of citizen parents makes you a citizen by nature, whereas in England, being born while your parents were passing through the country would make you a "subject" (servant) of the King, whether your parents wanted it or not. It is an Obligation of Perpetual allegiance that is THRUST upon you. The King may thereafter call you up into his Army, or try you for acts against England which you may commit at some future date, all based on the fact that you may have been born there. Indeed, I have read of exactly this sort of thing happening. You can find examples of it if you really want to see them.
Jus Soli is an excuse to GRAB allegiance from People, whether they wish to give it or not, and is therefore a principal of Regal Law based on the previous feudal system of Ownership by the Feudal Lord.
Your response seems to indicate that you had not considered this before. That is surprising, because you usually seem quick enough to grasp a salient point. (At least well enough to argue it's opposite. :) )
As for Tucker, Story and Rawle, St. George Tucker also supports our side. Story I have not looked into greatly, but I recall reading quotes from him that also support our side, while Rawle is explicitly on YOUR side.
I did do some checking into Rawle. His step father was a British Loyalist during the war, and Rawle was educated in law in London and abroad. It is no surprise that he should come away from his legal training with a confused perspective on what it is to be a "natural born" American citizen. His British training did him a disservice in this regard, and it unfortunately contributed to his promulgation of erroneous notions in the guise of his writings on the subject. How much damage was done by his influence we can only guess.
As Patlin has posted at her website:
Attorney-General Black, whose opinion of July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover, has become a classic on this subject. It seems worth while to quote from this notable opinion:
“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”
The United States, after some initial uncertainty, acknowledged the right of citizens to renounce their birth allegiance. So I agree with you there, that in international law, one may renounce, not controlled by the nation of birth’s law.
What I do not agree with is that conferring American citizenship by birth is “grabbing” allegiance from an unwilling person. It still strikes me as a somewhat odd view of the value of American citizenship. I have yet to hear of anyone complaining of their allegiance being “grabbed” by obtaining American citizenship at birth. (And while there certainly were English abuses, as Calvin’s Case shows, there were great advantages to being an English subject, and it was considered desirable by many over being an alien or denizen.)
Further, that would not be a matter of “natural born” or the version of some on your side, “citizen at birth, but not natural born.” In your theory, either would be “grabbing” allegiance, so no distinction.
Once again, the courts over two centuries have not upheld this bizarre idea that citizenship at birth was an imposition on the newly made citizen. So it’s an interesting theory, not one the courts have ever endorsed, or I predict, ever will endorse.