It comes into play, yet none of the Justices make one mention of naturalization.
I submit you are for your own convenience reading something into the opinion that isn't there.
We weren't talking about Calvin's case.
We were talking about whether Justice Story subscribed to a jus soli view on birth citizenship. And you brought up the point you didn't think Story was (or would) accept a mere temporary presence to support the requisite allegiance. That Story cites to Calvin's Case makes Calvin's Case highly relevant and instructive as to both points.
First was Inglis entitled to claim citizenship due to being in the States . . . . Story said No to the first question.
No, he didn't. He said that he would be inclined to view Inglis as an alien. "unless he was born between 4 July and 15 September, 1776." This repeats what Story had just said earlier -- if Inglis was born in that period (when his parents would have been under American jurisdiction) then he'd view Inglis as born a citizen.
Story DOES NOT use the term 'natural born citizen'
He speaks of being a citizen at birth. Citizenship came by two means: 1) birth and 2) naturalization. Contrary to Birther lore, there was no secret third category of native born persons who were not natural born. The terms were equivalents.
Plus, Story's summary of the common law rule:
"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
Don't put Cokes words into Story's mouth just because you think they agree.
Story's words so closely track Coke's words that it is implausible to suggest they don't agree; especially given Story gives a citation to Calvin's Case. Story made it plain he dissented with the court's reasoning for allowing Inglis to claim citizenship.
It's a confusing case to follow. One almost has to diagram it out. The majority took the view that no matter when Inglis was born he either was born a British subject (options 1 and 3 noted earlier) or under a disability precluding him from making the election required of all citizens as to which side of the war they were on. (It was Justice Johnson who wrote the clearer statement of citizenship I quoted earlier; Justia, unlike Cornell, doesn't break out the opinions by judge).
Story agreed with the majority in treating Inglis effectively as an alien (though, as noted Story would treat him as a citizen upon proper proof of birth between July 4 and Sept. 15) though Story offered different reasoning: "Upon another leading point, that of the alienage of the demandant, my opinion coincides generally with that of the majority of the Court, but the reasons on which it is founded are given more at large than in that now delivered by my brother THOMPSON."
That's correct. A citizen AT birth is a naturalized citizen. A citizen BY birth is natural born.
---
resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
That's right, that was the common law In England. But as I've already shown you (and you've summarily ignored) Story's own words - what he mentions as the 'common law' is not the end of the discussion. You keep acting as if he just stops in England at that point instead of continuing to explain the laws as they are applicable in the States DO NOT include temporary residents, but those with a political tie-
To constitute a citizen, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government
This is EXACTLY what Blackstone's work said as our country was forming-
OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER ALIENS, DENIZENS, OR NATIVES
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects.1 Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance, of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.
Chapter X , William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England
Which is also what Tucker said:
A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships15.html
You cannot be 'born within' the Allegiance of a State unless your parents ALREADY possess theirs.
----
Residency is a required procedure before an alien can become a citizen. The Founders insisted that both a residency requirement as well as a renunciation of foreign allegiance for their own generation despite the fact they fought the War.
Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty
Naturalization Act of 1795
http://www.earlyamerica.com/milestone-events/naturalization-act-of-1795-text/
-------
Believe as you will, but holding anyone else to a lesser standard than the Founders held themselves is not only a patently ridiculous concept, it's destroying the country as well.