It does when it says, "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." It goes on to cite the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it makes a distinction between "native women and native minors" as opposed to "alien women and alien minors" ... AGAIN, keeping in mind that NATIVES are those who are born in the country to citizen parents.
Also, you're misunderstanding the importance of the "doubts" comment. Virgina Minor claimed to be a 14th amendment citizen. The court rejected this argument because they were making a distinction between two classes of citizenship. Otherwise, they wouldn't have to talk about not needing to solve doubts, because they could have solved the doubts easily by accepting Minor's arugment. They did NOT do this.
Third, the Minor decisions notes a separate type of citizenship at birth through the naturalization act of 1790.
... 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.
If the United States subscribed to English common law, there should have been no need for such a provision to be inserted into a naturalization act. William Blackstone had noted in 1765 that English common law already recognized persons born abroad as natural born subjects.
But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
Do you understand. The U.S. did NOT follow English common law. The Naturalization Act covered everyone who was not naturally a citizen by birth which was aliens, their wives and children, and children born abroad of citizen parents.
And yes, Wong Kim Ark resolved doubt for the child of Chinese subjects ... because there would be NO DOUBT if Ark was a child of citizens and fit the definition of natural born citizen. Marco Rubio falls in the category of doubt. His citizenship is not natural, but is instead dependent on a Constitutional amendment and/or naturalization law.
Doesn’t the bible mention casting pearls before swine? :) You have the patience of a saint.
The Naturalization Act covered everyone who was not naturally a citizen by birth which was aliens, their wives and children, and children born abroad of citizen parents.
. . . .Marco Rubio falls in the category of doubt. His citizenship is not natural, but is instead dependent on a Constitutional amendment and/or naturalization law.
THEN, here is what the Supreme Court (and some common sense) says, that naturalization has NOTHING to do with people born INSIDE the country:
So far as we are informed, there is no authority, legislative, executive or judicial, in England or America, which maintains or intimates that the statutes (whether considered as declaratory or as merely prospective) conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of citizens have superseded or restricted, in any respect, the established rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. Even those authorities in this country, which have gone the farthest towards holding such statutes to be but declaratory of the common law have distinctly recognized and emphatically asserted the citizenship of native-born children of foreign parents. 2 Kent Com. 39, 50, 53, 258 note; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 659; Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371.
Which means, now that you have been busted out on this fib, you will now go back to saying again that citizens under the 14th amendment are different from natural born citizens (because Vattle Birthers can not count to TWO (LOL!!!)). Sooo, let me head you off at the pass. They are the same. The Supreme Court judges say:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
And then it says that people who are born in the allegiance of the United States LIKE MARK RUBIO who was born in Miami which is INSIDE America, ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS:
"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 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, even though the law is very clear about, Mark Rubio being a natural born citizen, YOU, being a Vattle Birther, will still try to muddy the waters for people here and mislead them about this, which I wonder WHY you don't just read the law and quit being one of the Vattle birthers. Are they holding your family hostage or something??? Do you owe them money???