Friedrich de Bourry, born in New York on December 4, 1862, to an Austrian citizen father who was only temporarily in the U.S.
The U.S. Secretary of State ruled that he WASN'T a U.S. citizen at birth because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen, never made the requisite declaration of his intention to become a citizen, or in any way signified his intention formally to abjure his Austrian allegiance.
And when was the case? It was during or shortly after the year 1886.
Just exactly as I said.
The position of the State Department, judging from what's written about de Bourry and the previous text:
And in another case Mr. Evarts said : "A person born in the United States has a right, though he has intermediately been carried abroad by his parents, to elect the United States as a nationality when he arrives at full age." Mr. Evarts to Mr. Cramer, November 12, 1880, MSS. Inst to Denmark, 2 Wharton, International Law Dig. 397.
was that such persons had "a right to elect the United States as a nationality."
This appears to be different from naturalization.
In other words, the policy seems to have been that if they were carried abroad as a child, they could lose their natural-born citizenship if they didn't come back here and take it up upon reaching age 21. If they returned at age 21, it appears the State Department would recognize them as natural born citizens. If they didn't... "hey, buddy, you chose to be an Austrian."
Then, with Wong, the government went from that to a flat, "You're not even a citizen."
After they had already once acknowledged that he WAS.
The Supreme Court put a stop to all of that with US v. Wong Kim Ark.