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.
But,but,but,but(you'll say). . .ALL persons just can't mean the aliens and foreigners!!! YES IT DOES. The court says:
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, and 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.
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.13
Sooo, it is time for YOU to break out of the Vattle Cult, and quit being a Vattle Birther. This is as close to doing it as YOU will probably ever get. If you don't, you will end up like the Moon Landing Deniers, spending your life spouting off a bunch of cult nonsense and having people either ignore you as a nut, or poke fun at you. I hope you do the right thing.
Nonsense. How can it be "natural" if there's doubt???? "Natural-born" in all other respects means "by virtue of one's nature, qualities, or innate talent." If you have to solve doubts, then it is NOT by one's nature, it is NOT innate. Being born in a country other than where your parents was born is NOT natural. It takes extraordinary circumstances to occur. Rubio's parents were exiled. Obama's father was here on a student visa. Neither of their children could be natural-born citizens unless the parents naturalized.
It's what the court says. if they are born here, then they are born "in the allegiance"---both classes
Wrong. The court said "in the allegiance" was defined by "adhering" to the one side or the other, whether it was Great Britain or the United States. Justice Gray NEVER used this citation as the controlling criteria for Wong Kim Ark's citizenship. His citation from U.S. v Rhodes was within the first 1/3 of the decision. His NEXT citation of the term "natural-born citizen" was from the Naturalization Act of 1790 and then from the Minor v. Happersett decision which defined natural-born citizen as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." From this point forward, the term "natural-born citizen" is NEVER used again. Gray COULDN'T use it because Ark was NOT a natural-born citizen by the very precedent and definition by which he was bound.
You've now acknowledged that Ark's citizenship is a second class of citizenship (it is NOT a second class of natural-born citizenship. Such an idea is an oxymoron.) and that it still comes with doubt and with strings. The citation you want to use about allegiance is originally from Shanks v. Dupont in 1830. If that decision established that the children of foreigners could be natural-born citizens (which it does NOT do), then there would never have been a necessity for the 14th amendment, nor for the Minor case, nor for the Wong Kim Ark case.
It's time for you to be honest with yourself and to admit the TRUTH. The Supreme Court has a single, exclusive, no-doubt definition of natural-born citizen. It applies ONLY to children born to citizen parents. Period. Close is not good enough. Rubio is NOT a natural-born citizen. Had his parents naturalized first, then the answer would be different ... but it's not.