You've got your talking points down, but you don't know actual facts of history. The reasoning of the court was that BECAUSE New York did not have a citizenship law, the court CHOSE to use English Common law to decide the case. The State Legislature of New York immediately thereafter created a citizenship law which would have prevented the Lynch v Clarke decisions had it been in effect when the decision was made. I posted you a copy earlier.
FIGURE IT OUT! The very fact that a state could produce a citizenship law which rejects the native born children of foreign citizens ought to be a clue for you. According to YOUR theory, such a thing is impossible. That ought to tell you that it is your theory which is defective.
Was Wilson referring to New York when he states:
“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…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 are such as are born out of it.” …… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.”
Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)
Or was he lying? You say you know history but you certainly don’t understand plain English. Wilson’s comment contains no ambiguity.