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.
Nonsense. All children of citizens is NOT a consequence of citizenship by birth. It's the other way around. Citizenship by birth is a consequence of being a child of a citizen; it's the only way someone could become a citizen if born outside of the country, which was the same as for inside of the country at the time the quote was written. If what you wanted to believe was true, then there was no need for the 14th amendment.
Rawle wrote that quote in the year 1829, more than FORTY YEARS after the Constitution was ratified.
Context is key. The rest of the quote immediately prior to the part you're focused on emphasizes how people became citizens upon the adoption of the Constitution. It doesn't say it's talking about the present day:
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States.
The quote is simply a continuation of who became natural-born citizens immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, just as I said. By the next generation, the only natural-born citizens would be those persons born of citizen parents. If what you wanted to desperately believe was true, there would have been no need for the birth clause in the 14th amendment. And we KNOW DEFINITIVELY from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that your misinterpretation of Rawle's commentary was not a common belief, otherwise, there would have been no need on the part of the government to deny Wong Kim Ark's birth citizenship — yet they did. And even the Wong Kim Ark decision admits by way of legal citation that the children of aliens were not considered to be citizens at birth prior to the 14th amendment because they were not subject to the jurisdiction.
the lawmaking power ... has denied to [aliens] what pertains to other American citizens -- the right of transmitting citizenship to their children -- unless they shall have made themselves residents of the United States or, in the language of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, have made themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
A second citation refers to Scottish parents who had to meet a domicil requirement to satisfy the subject clause, meaning citizenship by birth to aliens is not automatic nor natural-born citizenship.
In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power"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?
The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.
Dude, this whole question smacks of desperation. There's no twisting of history or the intention of the founders. It was expressed in clear and unambiguous terms in Minor v. Happersett when it called "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens" the "nomenclature" of the framers of the Constitution. Here's my question to you. If what you believed about Rawle is true, why does the Minor court unanimously rely on a citizenship definition that is based upon birth to citizen parents?? Why do they not simply accept Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen at birth?? What would be the need for talking about being born to parents who were citizens?? br