Except that the only citizens by birth were "all the children of citizens." It is a QUALIFIED statement. The context defines citizens by birth as the children of citizens. And your Rawle quote is equally misleading because it is describing the circumstances at time of the passage of the Constitution. Aliens who swore their allegiance to the United States became automatic citizens, thus their children born in the country were citizens. Neither of these quotes say what you desperately but incorrectly want them to say.
No, they weren't, edge. First of all it is NOT a "qualified statement." The succeeding clause is a consequence, or an example. Ask your English teacher about this.
And as clearly stated by William Rawle, "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.
So it is certainly and absolutely NOT true that "the only citizens by birth were 'all the children of citizens.'"
And your Rawle quote is equally misleading because it is describing the circumstances at time of the passage of the Constitution.
No, it isn't.
Rawle wrote that quote in the year 1829, more than FORTY YEARS after the Constitution was ratified.
In fact, Rawle is ABSOLUTELY EXPLICIT as to the time frame he is referring to. The sentence IMMEDIATELY preceding that one reads,
They [those who were citizens of a State WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED] became citizens of the latter [the United States], without ceasing to be citizens of the former [their own State], and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a State became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States.
So it is absolutely, 100%, crystal clear that William Rawle is stating that all of the people born on United States soil, since the ratification of the Constitution, are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS whether their parents are citizens or aliens, and are eligible to the Presidency.
Absolutely, 100%, crystal, clear.
Neither of these quotes say what you desperately but incorrectly want them to say.
I'm not "desperate" about wanting the Constitution to say one thing or the other. I never have been. It is birthers who, again and again, try to twist the plain meaning of words (just as you've done with these two quotes) to try and contort them into saying things that they clearly do not say, or into NOT saying things that they very clearly DO say.
Now I can't think of any reason to do that except for what you call "desperation," to maintain a belief that goes against the plain wording of history.
So I ask you the same question I ask the other birthers: Why are you so committed to an idea that is clearly not in accordance with the history of the intention of the Founding Fathers, that you are willing to try and twist the English language until it breaks (misrepresenting the voices of our early leaders and legal experts along the way) in order to try and prop up what is obviously a false meme?
And now, doing so not only at the expense of the Constitution and history, but at the expense of conservatism itself.