First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866
Be it enacted . . ., That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;
Then the court goes on to cite WKA as a reference in which we know references Minor v Happersett:
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. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. -Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
It’s getting late where I am.
Time to hit the sack!
Whether you agree or disagree I hope everyone found the article edifying.
The 14th amendment was also cited in the next few words of the same sentence.
First. On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case -- that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States -- the Court adverted to the ..
They also referanced "Steinkauler's Case, 15 Op.Atty.Gen. 15,
From the decision written by Chief Justice Hughes:
Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.
I still you are not getting my point and perhaps I am not getting yours. The fact that Miss Elg was a natural born citizen was not really important to the ruling, the fact that she was a native born citizen, via the 1866 civil rights act and the 14th amendment, was. That's why the NBC statement is dicta, at least to a point. Cheif Justice Hughes opinion also contains the information that tells us why the lower court ruled she was a natural born citizen:
The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here,
But, it would not have mattered, to the ruling in this case that she was a native born citizen, (as well a a natural born one), as the opinion make clear by many of the examples it cites, if her parents had not been naturalized.
The simple facts are, that while the Supreme Court has indicated on several occasions that a Natural Born Citizen must have two citizen parnents, in each case that was dicta, since the case only concerned citizenship, or native born citizenship, not natural born citizenship.