Here is what the US Supreme Court has ruled concerning your discussion:
“The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.”
In the full decision, they also discuss the case of blacks. Slaves were considered property, and as long as they were property, they could not be citizens. Once they ceased to be slaves, they became citizens, and the 14th Amendment overturned the ridiculous Dred Scott decision. And Indians were considered nations embedded within the borders of the USA.
But Obama isn’t a Sioux, and he wasn’t born to a slave, was he...
Thanks for the quote.
Which decision is it from?
It goes right along with a conclusion I reached some time ago, that citizenship in the Constitution followed common law, which is, with the two exceptions listed by the court, jus solis.
I also think it is interesting that the 14th Amendment does not claim that it is changing the Constitution, other than by making illegal previous exclusions by race.
IOW, it is extending to all racial groups the same definition of citizenship previously applied, by some states, only to white people. Which is jus solis, with minor exceptions as outlined in common law.
And the point you miss is that because of these dichotomies, none of the people heretofore being mentioned are "natural citizens." They are all naturalized. The 14th amendment is a "naturalization" Amendment.
Even in it's wording it equates being born here with being naturalized.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
It plainly regards birth in the US the same as naturalization because it makes no distinction between the two. What was it Chief Justice Waite Said again?
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
As the 14th amendment plainly says who will be "citizens", we must conclude that it does not say who shall be "natural born citizens", or ... that Justice Waite is an imbecile.