Birthright "Citizen"? Nope.

Mid-length scholarly essay on the question. Turns out a remarkably stupid Fed judge is involved.  HT PowerLine.

Here's the pertinent quote on the issue from Blackstone, who is the pre-eminent commentator on English (thus, American) law:

... The first and most obvious divisions is into aliens and natural-born subjects.” Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance of, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as born out of it....

...Natural allegiance is owed by a subject to his King. Local allegiance of aliens lasts only so long as he continues within the king’s protection, and it ceases, the instant such stranger transfers himself from this kingdom to another. Natural allegiance is therefore perpetual, and local temporary only....

Temporary.  IOW, the child may apply for citizenship (at the appropriate age) and--depending on the good graces of the Government--may even get super-expedited hearings and approval.

Until then?  Temporary.  No real, or "natural" allegiance.

The author then covers the 14th, and a couple of laws--notably the CRA of 1870, demonstrating that Congress never intended to grant "birthright" citizenship, period.  

So how did we get to the situation of today?  In Wong Kim Ark--the case allegedly governing the matter, we see this:

...Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese subject, could not, as a legal alien, become an American citizen at birth. He was a citizen of China to whom he owed loyalty and was thus an alien, who was put in an inexcusably horrible position under the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which allowed the federal government (which had successfully asserted a power of immigration distinct from naturalization) to keep him out of the country. So, if he could not enter as an alien, Justice Horace Gray decided to let him come back as a citizen by misstating the prior law, which ignored all well-established law dealing with this subject. Gray’s historical blunder has been perpetuated in all the modern cases that likewise ignored the historical sources and concluded wrongly that “subject to the jurisdiction” and “within the jurisdiction” were synonyms when they were opposites. No court should give any weight to a case that flatly gets the prior law upside down. That includes the current motion for a temporary restraining order. ...

Whaddya know?  A moron Fed Justice!

That SOB procreated and lots of his judicial children are now demolishing the USA.

Here's the Comey  "86".   (Whatever does that mean, dear?)