Here's the Google results for your *quote* I'm afraid you don't know how to do an advanced search on Google's vast store of books. It is different from a regular Google search. Perhaps you should learn about it.
Gee, I wonder why all those lead to YOUR POSTS ON FR, Jeff? I wonder why this quote can't be found ANYWHERE else on the net.
Would you like to know what a LEGITMATE quote from Bayard looks like, Jeff?
Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.' A Digest of the International Law of the United States , 1887 / Chapter VII, Page 183
Anyone who twists the facts and truncates quotes in order to support a false argument has nothing to say that would interest me at all.
Sigh.
The Bayard you quote was THOMAS F. BAYARD.
THOMAS Bayard was the SON of JAMES ASHETON BAYARD, JR. (who, quite confusingly, was really James Asheton Bayard III, but still went by "Junior.").
The doctrine of THOMAS Bayard, as US Secretary of State in the LATE 1800S, was that Richard Griesser, born in Ohio to a German father who was DOMICILED IN GERMANY, was not a US citizen.
That's not an unreasonable doctrine. It is an ANTI-BIRTH-TOURISM doctrine.
In any event, THOMAS Bayard wrote those words in 1887, an entire century after the Constitution was ratified.
THOMAS Bayard's opinion has some validity to it. Why should the son of a German father who was here ONLY TEMPORARILY, who DID NOT STAY HERE, who DID NOT MAKE HIS HOME IN THE UNITED STATES, be a United States citizen?
On the other hand, if Griesser had been DOMICILED here (like the parents of Wong Kim Ark) then his child born here would have been a natural born citizen.
But the Bayard that I was referring to is James Asheton Bayard, Jr., the author of A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, way back in 1833.
FIFTY-FOUR YEARS EARLIER.
And here is the link, to the 1840 edition of Bayard's book.
More than the link, here are images of the relevant pages.
Now you owe me a great big huge apology for falsely accusing me of "twisting facts," deliberately "truncating quotes," and making a "false argument."
Now you owe me a great big huge apology for falsely accusing me of "twisting facts," deliberately "truncating quotes," and making a "false argument." I 'owe' you nothing, particularly since the 'source' isn't even the Secretary of State that I thought he was. He was just a Senator...like Jacob Howard. You know, the one that co authored the 14th Amendment
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
center column halfway down
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
-----
The doctrine of THOMAS Bayard, as US Secretary of State in the LATE 1800S, was that Richard Griesser, born in Ohio to a German father who was DOMICILED IN GERMANY, was not a US citizen. That's not an unreasonable doctrine. It is an ANTI-BIRTH-TOURISM doctrine.
So a German father domiciled in Germany is an 'ANTI-BIRTH-TOURISM doctrine', but a Cuban father domiciled in Canada can make someone a 'natural born citizen'?
Allrightythen!
------
I've given a Secretary of State saying someone born in the united States to a foreign father IS a foreigner, yet you continue to tap dance around - failing to refute the pertinent aspects of the assertions..... and have the audacity to act as if I'm the one with the comprehension problem? LOL! How pathetic.
Now you owe me a great big huge apology for falsely accusing me of "twisting facts," deliberately "truncating quotes," and making a "false argument." NOTHING you responded with supports your position. This is just your latest attempt to deceive people into believing you've "proven" something.
I've read what you've had to say far too many times. You ALWAYS claim that you PROVED something when you didn't. You are the master of the non sequitur, the ad nauseum, and the false equivalency.
You conflate birth on soil to "born a citizen" and you conflate "born a citizen" to "natural born citizen." You incrementally slither from one dubious conclusion to the next and then declare the beginning and the ending to be exactly alike.
Now it has been demonstrated to you that a person born on American soil does not automatically become a citizen, that the person's FATHER is the determining factor, and what do you do? You attempt to pretend that this is an irrelevant point when it is the VERY HEART OF THE ISSUE.
The quote from Thomas F Bayard demonstrates that your claim is FALSE. Birth on the soil does NOT EQUAL citizenship, yet you are going to continue making this claim, and you are going to continue asserting that "ALL AUTHORITIES SUPPORT ME!" Even though this has been clearly disproved so many times it's no longer funny.
You don't need an apology, you need mental help.