No they don't, and you've never accurately cited to one case that holds opposite of Bellei on that point.
Kagan, arguing to SCOTUS as Solicitor General in Flores-Villar v. United States
The United States has always applied the rule of "jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute." Bellei, 401 U.S. at 828
And how about Justice Scalia, in Concurring Opinion in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)
The Constitution "contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." Ibid. Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress." Id., at 702-703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the "authority of Congress" that is appealed to-- its power under Art. I, 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien.
I actually did before you wrote me off In the last thread- I gave the links that show that jus soli and jus sanguinis are now both considered as NBC in that FAS.org article by CRS- there were a couple of cases In there that determined that decades after the Bellei case- my post above gives the link to the article and the cases- (They are all down around page 40 41)