Please do not play dense. Here is how this works. We establish what WAS, we establish when and how it was changed, and then we establish what IS.
I will take it from your response that you concede the point that in 1845,(I will point out that Lynch v Clarke was in 1844, and the legislature of New York explicitly rebuked the court's decision with this new law.) the law (In the State of New York and others) was that a child of transient aliens was NOT a citizen, and therefore birth on the soil would NOT make someone a "natural born citizen". If my understanding of your position is correct, then let me know.
There is no point in discussing 1961 until we have solidified what was the law prior to the 14th amendment. I have shown you evidence that "birth on the soil" was not the sole requirement. (as if the proof of Indians, Slaves and diplomats wasn't enough)
The applicable interpretations and laws are what was in 1961. That’s pretty well established – born in the US (usual exceptions) equals natural born. As I have said many times, if you disagree, work to have it changed, but don’t claim the court decisions haven’t happened, or rail about the court being wrong and expect it to have an effect.
I will take it from your response that you concede the point that in 1845,(I will point out that Lynch v Clarke was in 1844, and the legislature of New York explicitly rebuked the court's decision with this new law.) the law (In the State of New York and others) was that a child of transient aliens was NOT a citizen, and therefore birth on the soil would NOT make someone a "natural born citizen". If my understanding of your position is correct, then let me know.
If you read up on it, there was a wave of anti-immigrant feeling from 1830 to about 1860, evidenced by the Know Nothing party, the Native American party, etc. There was widespread anti-Catholic sentiment, and reaction against the floods of immigrants from Ireland and Germany. New York was getting a large proportion of the immigrants. The Native American Association was very active in New York, and there was a petition (p31) to change naturalization laws, requiring 21 years residence in order to vote. Given the sentiments of the time, no surprise that New York code might include this, but it's irrelevant.
You will of course know that what you posted applied to a citizen of New York but could not supersede Lynch v. Clarke in unmaking someone a citizen of the United States. From Lynch v Clarke:
So whatever the New York legislature passed, the court had already ruled with regard to US citizenship.My conclusion upon the facts proved is, that Julia Lynch was born in this state, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn. That they came here as an experiment, without any settled intention of abandoning their native country, or of making the United States their permanent abode.(a) They never concluded to remain here permanently, and after trying the country, they returned to their native land, and there ended their lives, many years afterwards. They took Julia with them to Ireland; she continued to reside there, and when Thomas Lynch died, she was about fourteen years of age, and a resident of Ireland….[p 638]
Second. Such being the rule of the common law, in the absence of express legislation, the difficult question is presented for decision; is the common law in this respect, the law of this state, or of the United States ? If it be the law here, then Julia Lynch was a native born citizen, and inherited the property in controversy; assuming that it was the property of Thomas Lynch, as alleged in the bill of complaint….[p639]
And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. ” No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution ? I think not.[p656]
There is no point in discussing 1961 until we have solidified what was the law prior to the 14th amendment. I have shown you evidence that "birth on the soil" was not the sole requirement. (as if the proof of Indians, Slaves and diplomats wasn't enough)
The applicable interpretations and laws are what was in 1961. You maintain the laws and interpretations were wrong, because the Founders actually meant something different. You have shown me that New York citizenship was denied to children of transients (SAD was domiciled in Hawaii) but not that US citizenship was denied. You even cited the NY Chancery case that showed US citizenship was not denied to children of transients. (And I have answered your Indians and Slaves objection multiple times. And arguing about diplomats, who are excepted from the laws of the host country and thus not "subject to the jurisdiction" is absurd.)