Bingham doesn't disagree with the likes of Wilson (his own Judiciary Chair) or Howard or Trumbull (or me). Well if they say what you claim they do, then it would appear that he does.
He's in agreement with Zephaniah Swift (1795), St. George Tucker (1803), James Kent (1825) -- all whom espoused the jus soli view before Wm. Rawle.
Rawle was espousing the jus soli view in his Freedom Cases filed in Pennsylvania courts in the late 1790s, so you are incorrect about this. Rawle also knew fully well that the courts were having none of his jus soli nonsense. That's why he waited till most of these judges were dead before writing his book. (1829)
Anchor babies? That concept presupposes a closed-border/illegal-entry world which was utterly unknown to the Framers. I doubt it was in their purview to deny entry to persons wanting to come, be industrious, worship freely, and better their lives. That, after all, was what motivation the Founders or their recent ancestors. Here you again exhibit the fallacy of anachronism and projection.
Demonstrating your ignorance once more. Read up on Jefferson's and Monroe's efforts to stop English subjects from posing as Americans in the run up to the war of 1812.
It was a serious problem for him because Emperor Napoleon was insinuating that the US was deliberately lending aid and support to the British. Seaman's papers were invented in an effort to solve this and the problem of impressment.
Minor nowhere says that a person born of alien parents isn't a natural born citizen.
It says the 14th amendment citizenship is not the equivalent of "natural born citizen." In a case specifically about the 14th amendment, they say:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
That one sentence blows your argument to H3ll, let alone the other things they say which just make the rubble bounce.
Well if they say what you claim they do, then it would appear that he does. Well, they do say what I'm claiming. Why the doubt? I was rubbing your nose in this earlier. Here's Wilson:
"It is in vain we look into the Constitution of the United States for a definition of the term "citizen." It speaks of citizens, but in no express terms defines what it means by it. We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments are native born citizens of the United States. Thus it is expressed by a writer on the Constitution of the United States: "Therefore 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." Rawle on the Constitution, pg. 86."
And -- inexplicably under your view of Bingham's comments -- neither he nor anyone else has further words to say on the manifest contradiction between his view and Wilson's. And would Bingham somehow have been out of touch with Wilson on this issue? That hardly seems likely. On the page you linked earlier (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291), Bingham remarks, regarding the equal rights provision:
"I understand very well, from private conversations I have had with my learned friend, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee . . ."
So, Bingham, the Chairman of the Subcommittee charged with Reconstruction amendments had close private conversations with, Wilson, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. No big shocker there.
BUT, in DiogenesLamp's nutso historical world view, Bingham was espousing a view on natural born citizenship very much at odds with his "learned friend" James Wilson, yet neither of them give the slightest indication whatsoever there's a disagreement. That is a fatuous view on history, one borne solely of your desperation to put Bingham in your camp so you can in Birther-fashion claim the "father of the 14th Amendment." (The label sounds good, but unfortunately for Birthers, Bingham wasn't the draftsman of the clause at issue).
The more rational view here is that Bingham wasn't at odds with Wilson, and that is borne out by Bingham's later remarks:
"Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen." Rep. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 40th Cong, 2nd Sess, p. 2212 (1869)"
What Wilson stated and what Bingham here stated align perfectly.
Rawle was espousing the jus soli view in his Freedom Cases filed in Pennsylvania courts in the late 1790s
And what cases were those? Is this what you have in mind? Cases Before Michael Reppele. In that case Rawle argues successfully based on a clause apparently added in 1780 to the Pennsylvania Constitution relating to children of slaves born in the state. I see no where in any of these materials where one peep is said about birthright citizenship.
Also from the Historical Society of Pennsylvania
William Rawle, a young local attorney, was a critical member of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society as it re-oriented its strategy in the mid-1780s, focusing more on aggressive legal action to aid aggrieved slaves and free blacks. He often successfully sued in defense of his black clients, winning a more secure freedom for many of them. In 1785, Rawle lived at 341 Arch Street. Macpherson’s Directory for the City and Suburbs of Philadelphia (1785), 116.
Where are you getting this bit about "the courts were having none of his jus soli nonsense? It seems another of your historical fails is about to unfold here, but I'll await what evidence you may have before holding forth.
Demonstrating your ignorance once more. Read up on Jefferson's and Monroe's efforts to stop English subjects from posing as Americans in the run up to the war of 1812.
Another of your nonsequitturs. Englishmen posing as Americans as war tensions mount is a more a matter of espionage than it is immigration policy.
It says the 14th amendment citizenship is not the equivalent of "natural born citizen." In a case specifically about the 14th amendment, they say:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.
How on earth do you take:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens
and wind up with that meaning:
It says the 14th amendment citizenship is not the equivalent of "natural born citizen."??
"The Constitution does not, in words, say .. " Right. The Constitution states the term "natural born citizen," but doesn't not attempt to further delineate or classify who those persons are. The constitution doesn't in words say that children of citizen parents are NBC; it doesn't say they aren't. The Constitution doesn't in words say that children of aliens aren't NBC; it doesn't say they are.
When we get to WKA, the Court elaborates on this point:
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." . . .
* * * The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, 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, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162.
So "NBC" is not defined in the Constitution except insofar as the 14th Amendment states that "persons born . . . in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction" are citizens. Gray makes clear the 14th Amendment language "defines" in part the term "natural born citizen."
And what Gray right on this point? Yes, as we know from the legislative history to the 14th Amendment that Congress very much intended the citizenship provision to be a declaration of existing law. And the only "existing law" as to birth citizenship was that of "natural born citizen."
Your contention that that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with "natural born citizen" is, once again, demonstrated to be WRONG. But, I see the ostrich about to bury his head and cry "It's too long! I can't read that much! I will ignore it!"