Wrong. We do follow the English common law principle of Jus Soli or right of soil.<quoted text>
Ark was an exception and the court was wrong! English common law was not followed in this country as it was in England. So everyone born on US soil is NOT a US citizen. Period.
“Many countries confer citizenship based on bloodline (jus sanguinis) rather than, as the United States does, on place of birth (jus soli). US v. Flores-Villar, 536 F. 3d 990, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)
The United States, for example, bestows citizenship to persons born within the United States or its territories (jus soli) and to those born abroad to a citizen parent (jus sanguinis). The combination of these overlapping citizenship rules "must inevitably lead to cases of dual nationality as to children of foreign parents." Wauchope v. US Dept. of State, 756 F. Supp. 1277, 1283 (N.D. Ca 1991)(internal citation omitted), affirmed, 985 F. 2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993)
"United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation." Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)
“[W]e find that the Constitution has recognized the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth. Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393, 581 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)
Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 170 (1964)
“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)