Backpedaling on your part. The Blackstone quote submitted is, "The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."
I've just shown WHY Blackstone uses the disclaimer, "generally speaking." Blackstone later admits in his own words that English-born children of aliens IN FACT did NOT have all the privileges of English-born children of English subjects.
No backpedaling on my part. As Mr Rogers points out, there are exceptions, the most well known being children of foreign diplomats.
As for backpedaling, first you claim an entry in the House of Commons Journal in 1604 proves that a law was passed, when in fact it was not, merely debated.
Then you claim Blackstone is wrong. Now you are trying to instead parse Blackstone to make his commentaries support your point, when he clearly states the contrary.
Finally, you put up three authors (none so well known or considered as authoritative as Blackstone) and claim they support your point without giving quotes, specific cites, or links. In fact, the ones I bothered to look up DON’T support your point, but rather agree that those born on British soil whose parents were “under the legiance” are natural born subjects. There are plenty of definitions (including Blackstone) to show that under the legiance meant not born of foreign diplomats or enemies.
Talk about backpedaling!