Replies

with some saying that those born of alien parents are also NBC

children born of US citizens abroad are natural-born citizens as well.

MvH describes the "doubted class" not as "born in the jurisdiction of alien parents", but "born in the district without reference to the citizenship of the parents", a phrase which is utterly inclusive of the first class.

MvH is not describing two distinct classes, but is saying some authorities broaden the definition by eliminating the jus sanguinis requirement. Anyone who is a member of the first, more restrictive class is, by the definition set forth in MvH, also a member of the second, broader class.

Once again, the birther argument impales itself on the crystal clarity of the English.

I think this would be a good point... except for the fact that Justice Waite immediately follows up that sentence with:

As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

He therefore is thinking in terms of two "classes" or identifiable groups of people.

It's always good to check the context of the sentence.

Nonetheless, I do agree with your statement that the birther argument is impaling itself.

It is particularly impaling itself by claiming that Minor v. Happersett establishes a legal precedent for the birther definition of "natural born citizen" when the opinion in that case quite clearly contradicts their definition by directly stating that according to US law, the children born of US citizens abroad are natural-born citizens too.

And it states this in a UNANIMOUS Supreme Court ruling that directly quotes the Presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution: "...no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.

It is therefore very clear that the whole Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett was well aware of the Presidential eligibility implications when they explicitly rejected the notion that "natural born citizens" are only the children born on US soil of two US citizen parents.

You may still be correct, though. I’d have to think about it.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that as far as the actual sentence goes, you are correct.

I'm not sure of the importance of that, though. Because the doubts about the second (inclusive) class, cannot be due to the members of the first class, about whom there are no doubts. The doubt is due solely to the added members, who consist of children of foreigners born on US soil.

In any practical terms, it therefore seems to mean the same thing, no matter whether you parse it inclusively or exclusively.

MvH is not describing two distinct classes, but is saying some authorities broaden the definition by eliminating the jus sanguinis requirement. Anyone who is a member of the first, more restrictive class is, by the definition set forth in MvH, also a member of the second, broader class.

Once again, the birther argument impales itself on the crystal clarity of the English.

Sorry, but what exactly is your point?? NBC is obviously a subclass of the term "citizen". No so-called "birther" would argue against that. Waite isn't trying to define what it means to be a citizen. He's rejecting Virginia Minor's argument of being a 14th amendment citizen because she is a natural born citizen. If he accepted her argument, there was no need to explain why there are doubts about the citizenship of persons who are not born in the country to citizen parents. Second, what you and the other faithers and Obots overlook is that Waite distinguished natives or natural born citizens from aliens or foreigners. Anyone who is NOT born in the country to citizen parents is naturally an alien or naturally a foreigner. The only way they become citizens is through collective naturalization (by statute or Constitutional declaration) or by voluntary naturalization.