Snug Harbor dealt with the American ante nati - those born in disputed territories during the war. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
As for Minor - I’m right & you are wrong. That is why you lose EVERY CASE! Because y’all are nutjobs! You cannot even read a paragraph and understand it, and then you wonder why the courts don’t take you seriously. You can post your lies and craziness 10,000 times, but you cannot win a single argument in court - not even when y’all are the only ones who show up.
Minor uses the term NBC two times, and uses it as the equivalent of citizen and native. But you say it was a formal definition. Well, you say what you want, but no court will ever agree with you. Not because the courts are dishonest, but because you are too damn stupid to read a single paragraph, let alone two:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
What you're lamenting is irrelevant. It STILL recognized that jus soli was NOT enough by itself to make someone a natural-born citizen. And it cited Vattel for saying that citizenship naturally follows the condition of the father. The same principles were cited again in Shanks v. Dupont. Second, by arguing about ant nati, you're admitting there are multiple ways to classify citizens at birth. You're arguing against yourself.
Minor uses the term NBC two times, and uses it as the equivalent of citizen and native.
Rogers, evidently you have a lot of trouble even counting. NBC is used FOUR times, not just twice. Second, it also defines natives as those born in the country to citizen parents.
Not because the courts are dishonest, but because you are too damn stupid to read a single paragraph, let alone two:
Rogers, what you've cited supports me. Read the first paragraph. It talks about ADDITIONS to citizenship. No one argues that there aren't two ways to add to the citizenship, but keep in mind, it's adding to pre-existing citizenship. That means there was a third way to become citizens for those who were already citizens. Second, just because there are "two ways" doesn't mean there aren't subclasses under each way to add citizens. The second paragraph talks about two such subclasses and only ONE was characterized as natives and natural-born citizens.