You said:
NBC: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
Citizenship by birth: "But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution."
=========
What the The Supreme Court ACTUALLY says:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.
=========== Plus, here is your quote, which you cut off, and didn't give a COMPLETE quote of:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
BUT, here is the COMPLETE quote:
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.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
THEN the judges [in section II] go through about a zillion cases of that English history stuff and sum it up as:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
After saying this about the English Law, then they start in on American law cases
[And then they start section III and they say] III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
And then they say, quoting another case:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
Which is what I told you before: Every body, regardless of parentage born here, is born in the allegiance of the US (with two exceptions) and if you are born here in the allegiance of the U.S, then you are a natural born citizen.
Very simple. No Vattle stuff. No difference in 14th amendment citizens and NBCs. None of what you say.
If anybody here doubts this, then here is the link to the case and you can just read it for yourself:
This SUPPORTS my point. Thanks for shooting your own arugment in the foot. READ IT.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
The first part of this citation says specifically it is a reference to the Constitution ... specifically the 14th amendment. Then it cites the citizen clause and the verb of the sentence, which you omitted. Here's the ENTIRE first part of the passage:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration thatall persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.
The 14th amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship. This does NOT contradict the earlier statement that NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution. Gray is now ONLY talking about birth as defined BY the Constitution through the 14th amendment. He does not call it natural born citizenship, nor does he suggest that it is the same concept. The next passage is STILL talking about the 14th amendment. He is pointing out that the 14th still reserves naturalization authority to Congress, but that that it defines the circumstances for what he calls "citizenship by birth." READ IT.
Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution.BUT, here is the COMPLETE quote:
The complete quote referencing Minor still says that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution. The definition in question, which is quoted, is a verbatim match of Vattel and NOT English common law. Again, the Minor definition did NOT cite ANY English common law. When it said "at common law" it is referring to the Law of Nations since that definition is where their definition of NBC OBVIOUSLY came from.
Which is what I told you before: Every body, regardless of parentage born here, is born in the allegiance of the US (with two exceptions) and if you are born here in the allegiance of the U.S, then you are a natural born citizen.
Sorry, but this is simply not true and the citation of U.S. v Rhodes is acutally a citation from Shanks v. Dupont which recognized that persons born in the United States could be British subjects ... and not just those who were born to foreign ministers, etc. It applied to ANYONE who adhered to the Crown. READ IT:
All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually absolved from their allegiance to the British crown, and those who then adhered to the British crown, were deemed and held subjects of that crown.
Understand it. All thoses natives or otherwise ... those born in the country who adhered to the British crown were subjects of the crown. Being born in the allegiance of the United States meant ADHERING to the American states as it says above.