I am of the opinion that the jus soli foundation for American Citizenship is false. That our Break from England in 1776 effectuated a break with it's feudal based rules governing subjects , and that we thereafter did not follow English Common law on this matter. There is quite a bit of evidence to support this position.
I am likewise of the opinion that the reason so many people today believe we followed English Common law was because so many people in the early 19th Century were asserting that we did; Specifically William Rawle in his widely distributed book " A View of the Constitution."
But Rawle was not a Delegate at the Constitutional convention, nor was he a member of any State's ratifying legislature. He was the Son of a British Loyalist during the War for Independence, and received his legal training in England, where he would have been taught nothing else. In addition to that, I have evidence that indicates Rawle deliberately lied about this in the writing of his book.
Most of the people who make the claim that we follow English Common law were not Delegates or Legislators and had nothing to do with adopting the US Constitution.
The Only exception of which I am aware is James Madison during his defense of William Loughton Smith, but Madison himself contradicted this position as President, so you could say he's on both sides of the issue, though I would say his acts as President count for more than his words while trying to support a political ally in Congress.
The people who WERE Constitutional Delegates or members of the Ratifying Legislature indicate that we did NOT follow English Common Law, but rather followed Natural Law as related by Emmerich Vattel.
I would point out that after the treaty of Paris, there were Hundreds of thousands of British Loyalists and their children who did not suddenly become American just because they were born in the US after July 4, 1776. The rule was never applied to Indians, and it was also never applied to slaves.
The jus soli principle is conspicuous in regards to how many exceptions there were to it throughout American History. It had so many exceptions that they had to enact a 14th amendment just to create a de facto jus soli rule.
Obviously Slaves were exempt to it till 1868, and Indians were exempt to it till 1924. A rule with many millions of exemptions is hardly a rule at all.
The problem is the fourteenth amendment was adopted in 1868 not in 1787. The author's thesis is to the effect that geography determines unless there is an absence of domicile. That puts us back in nearly as tight a box as the conventional reading which says that all non-diplomat, non-soldier births are citizens leaving us with only tourism babies.
There is another problem, if we reject the author's argument entirely and say jus soli means nothing except what Congress says it means, you don't really have birth citizenship at all which is a an exceedingly strained interpretation of the fourteenth amendment and clearly contrary to the holding of the Wong case.
I thought this was an interesting article:
Does the Constitution really give Congress power over immigration?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution granted power to Congress to define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations. I decided to dig more deeply into the eighteenth century legal sources to determine whether that might include authority over immigration. Sure enough, it turns out that during the Founding Era, restrictions over immigration and emigration comprised a well-recognized branch of the Law of Nations. In other words, Congresss power to define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations included authority to define immigration rules and punish those who violated them. An explanation appears in latest update of my book, The Original Constitution: What It Really Said and Meant .