NBC is defined OUTSIDE the Constitution.
Those of your beliefs claim it was defined by a Swiss author. SCOTUS cases have said it was adapted from English Common Law. Want to guess what English common law says about "natural born"? It is "born on the soil". We've been through this but you refuse to believe it. Despite many Justices, law texts, etc. explicitly saying that much of the Constitution comes from common law.
The so-called fundamental rule of "citizenship by birth" was defined BY the Constitution through the 14th amendment. These are TWO different types or classes of citizenship.
You keep claiming that, but have nothing to back it up. The US Constitution, and US law recognizes two classes of citizens only - natural born and naturalized. Nowhere does it speak of "not natural born and not naturalized citizens". Good try.
Minor v. Happersett. It describes two classes of birth citizens. ONLY ONE is characterized as natural-born. We've been over this. All you do is deny and/or bail out when you can't refute the facts.
On the contrary. You are falling into a composition fallacy - Minor v Happersett said [emphasis added]
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.Are you intellectually honest enough to acknowledge what this means? The Justice describes one group as natural born citizens, and explicitly says this case will not address other groups which may or may not be categorized as natural born. One again - IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS CASE. So you can stop claiming Minor v Happersett backs you up, because it doesn't.
"SCOTUS has said specifically that the US follows this in jus soli citizenship."
... only through the 14th amendment and statutory law, BUT subject to other conditions and requirements. Natural-born citizenship is a combination of jus soli AND jus sanguinis without any other requirements. The court made this clear in three cases that I've already cited, plus in TWO more cases that you've cited.
Funny, you claim other conditions and requirements, a combination of jus soli and sanguinus, but I don't see those in the Constitution, or in any current law. If you want to go back to when it was only White men, you can find conditions that no longer apply.
Your understanding of English common law, it appears to be deficient. You say "This is statutory naturalization when it concerns the children of foreigners and aliens. Try reading WKA more carefully. From WKA
except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law,and
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.. As to English common law, it is quite clear that born on the soil (usual diplomatic and military exceptions) is natural born. From WKA
The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.To clarify for you - children born in England of alien parents (as long as they were not at war with England) are natural born.
Nothing here undermines nor changes the fact that the Wong Kim Ark decision affirmed and upheld the Minor definition of NBC ... and affirmed that NBCs were excluded from the operation of the birth clause in the 14th amendment.
Good try. That's not what Minor said (instead it said there was doubt, which it wouldn't address), and WKA did not "uphold" Minor v Happersett. It also didn't affirm anything about NBCs being excluded from anything in the 14th amendment.
the court said specifically that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens. You can't get around this inconvenient fact, so you might as well admit you're wrong and save yourself further embarrassment.
And the court goes on to say that "natural-born" must be interpreted in light of the common law. See above quotes for what the common law says about natural born. You are the one who should be embarrassed by either your lack of reading comprehension, or your refusal to acknowledge what is clearly stated.
And to all, Happy New Year. I’m offline for the next few days.
The SCOTUS definition matches nearly verbatim. This has been proven.
SCOTUS cases have said it was adapted from English Common Law.
This is factually incorrect. The only definition of natural-born citizen formally used by the court is a verbatim match from the law of nations.
Despite many Justices, law texts, etc. explicitly saying that much of the Constitution comes from common law.
Sorry, but you are wrong. I've cited the specific passages on this several times DIRECTLY from the SCOTUS and in direct application to Article II. The only thing you have is a connect-the-dots distortion of what these cases actually say. It's time to quit deceiving yourself.
You keep claiming that, but have nothing to back it up.
I've posted exact quotes directly from the Wong Kim Ark decision. You're not being honest. Time to fess up.
The US Constitution, and US law recognizes two classes of citizens only - natural born and naturalized.
Wrong. There are SEVERAL classes of citizenship that are based on two SOURCES of citizenship. Both the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases point out several different classes.
On the contrary. You are falling into a composition fallacy - Minor v Happersett said
What you've cited is NOT contrary to what I've said, nor have I made a composition fallacy, plus YOU'RE ignoring the sentence that shows the court recognizing TWO classes of citizens by way of birth. When it says it's not necessary to solve doubts, it's because the class of citizenship that applied to Virginia Minor fit the Article II characterization of natural-born citizenship. If it didn't fit the NBC definition, then there are doubts that need to be solved. Read it. Learn it. Understand it.
The Justice describes one group as natural born citizens, and explicitly says this case will not address other groups which may or may not be categorized as natural born.
You're misreading it. This is YOUR composition fallacy. The doubts that are expressed are whether the second class of persons are citizens, NOT whether they can be categorized as natural-born. If they were natural-born, there would be no doubts to solve. For the passage to mean what you want it to mean, it would have said something like this:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. These two classes were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners, although to the latter class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
Further, we know that the Minor definition of NBC ONLY applied to the one criteria of citizenship because Gray told us so in Wong Kim Ark:
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."
Do you understand?? In order for your interpretation to be accurate, Gray would have said, "When construing the 14th, Justice Waite said there is doubt about whether the Constitution says who shall be natural-born citizens. To solve that doubt we must use common law." But, it doesn't say that. By saying the definition is OUTSIDE the Constitution, it means that classification of citizens with doubt CANNOT be used to say who shall be NBCs.
Funny, you claim other conditions and requirements, a combination of jus soli and sanguinus, but I don't see those in the Constitution, or in any current law.
Are you really this stupid??? What part of OUTSIDE the Constitution do you not understand?? When construing the 14th amendment, the Constitution doesn't define NBC. That's what the court said. Waite used the law of nations criteria of jus soli AND jus sanguinis ... and this is AFFIRMED when the Wong Kim Ark decision says:
Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ....
BOTH criteria are there. Do you see it????? It's time to start being honest, lurker.
To clarify for you - children born in England of alien parents (as long as they were not at war with England) are natural born.
We're not discussing citizenship law in England. Keep up. "In light of" does NOT mean "in strict adherence." We know the founders rejected English common law on citizenship because they had to in order to be recognized as U.S. citizens.
And the court goes on to say that "natural-born" must be interpreted in light of the common law.
Sorry, but this false. It says the 14th amendment must be interpreted in light of the common law. You posted the citation that proves you're wrong on this very point. It's time to admit your errors.br