Edge919 - A marvel of mis-reading, selective quoting and bad logic. The truth is SO SIMPLE, and yet you cling to complex and obscure lie, by ignoring the many points in plain sight that make your claims fatally flawed.
If you READ THE WHOLE RULING of Minor v Happersett, with a mind open to facts and logic, you will see that the simple truth - that ‘natural-born’ and ‘acquired citizenship at birth’ are one and the same - and the court even stated as much, on their way to making a ruling that declared women to be citizens yet not entitled to vote.
1) There are two ways to become a citizen:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization.”
2) One of those ways, by birth, is synonomous with ‘natural-born’:
“This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides 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,” 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.”
3) THIS SECTION IS ABOUT WHO ACQUIRES CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH AND USES “NATURAL-BORN” AS A TERM TO DESCRIBE THAT CLASS:
“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 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.”
note at the end, they just say citizens, when the whole paragraph is about natural-born citizens. Note that ‘there are doubts’ does not in any way limit the prior definition. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent decided that.
4) THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS SECTION WAS TO DETERMINE IS WOMEN ARE CITIZENS, the ONLY purpose for using “natural-born” was to distinguish from the OTHER case, that of naturalization:
“ The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea. “
and later... the court declares: “From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth. “
5) CLAIMS THAT THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL-BORN IS FIXED OR LIMITED IS SPECIOUS AS LATER IN THE RULING ... “and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens.
You state: “Clearly, one term is defined in the Constitution and the other, NBC, is NOT. “ Clearly, this statement is wrong. Citizenship rights are defined in the constitution and in laws. Attempts to treat a simple legal term of art as an artifice of some special and different class meets with the dull thud of reality- no court ruling, no law, and no contitutional provision has ever defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as anything other than simply those citizens who acquire citizenship at time of birth.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html
Unfortunately for you, this comment only applies to yourself. I gave direct quotes using the term natural-born citizen. Can't wait to see the rediculous way you try to spin this.
Your quotes in points 1 and 2 don't presume citizenship at birth solely on the basis of jus soli (pun intended) to non-citizen parents. New citizens may be added at birth (or "may be born"), but nothing here says to noncitizen parents. Under the naturalization acts that Minor cites, children of aliens could only become citizens after their fathers naturalized. And of course, AFTER naturalization, any children born would then be natural born citizens. Sorry this logic completely escapes you.
On No. 3, you say, "note at the end, they just say citizens, when the whole paragraph is about natural-born citizens. Note that ‘there are doubts’ does not in any way limit the prior definition. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent decided that." It does limit the definition to children of citizen parents. Wong Kim Ark AFFIRMED this, because it said, "The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ..." What you're missing is that Justice Waite was rejecting the 14th amendment as being necessary for anyone who was not born of citizens parents. If the United States was following a so-called English common law principle of citizenship at birth regardless of the citizenship of the parents, there would have been no need for the 14th amendment. Justice Waite used Vattel's definition of natural born citizenship to reject the 14th amendment for the plaintiff. "There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position." And he proceeds to explain that under the definition of natural born citizenship, Virgina Minor is already a citizen and does not need the 14th amendment. Justice Gray did not have these conditions to use for Wong Kim Ark. Remember, he upholds Minor's decision on citizenship, so he HAD to find another basis for declaring the child of a noncitizen to be a citizen at birth.
On Point No. 4, you say "THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS SECTION WAS TO DETERMINE IS WOMEN ARE CITIZENS, the ONLY purpose for using “natural-born” was to distinguish from the OTHER case, that of naturalization:" Well, no. The court is saying that women fall under both natural born citizenship and 14th amendment citizenship. Waite's definition for NBC is "all children" and the 14th amendment says "all persons." The plaintiffs are proceeding "upon this idea" because she's trying to overturn a provision in her state's constitution that only allows male citizens vote.
You also fail in your citation between alien woman and children vs. native woman and children. Remember that Waite's definition of being born in the country to citizen parents makes some a NBC AND a NATIVE. Thus, a native woman and native child would be someone who is born in the country to citizen parents.
Point 5 is a fail because the quoted naturalization act merely shows that the citizenship of the parents (especially the father) is the stronger determinant for natural born citizenship; not jus soli. This does nothing to help your argument.
You said, "Citizenship rights are defined in the constitution and in laws." But as WKA and Minor both agree, Natural born citizenship is NOT defined in the Constitution. You say, "no court ruling, no law, and no contitutional provision has ever defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as anything other than simply those citizens who acquire citizenship at time of birth," which according to your own citations is wrong. Two court rulings and one law that you quoted define natural born citizen as being dependent on the citizenship of the parents. Game. Set. Match.