"The Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, in ruling in 1875 that women did not have the constitutional right to vote in federal or state elections (as a privilege or immunity of citizenship), raised and discussed the question in dicta as to whether one would be a “natural born” citizen if born to only one citizen-parent or to no citizen-parents, noting specifically that “some authorities” hold so. The Court, however, expressly declined to rule on that subject in this particular case."
From the actual text of the ruling:
"These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. 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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
This is beyond 'out of context'. This is fraud. Pure, simple fraud.
"Some authorities..." is purely a reference to the concept children born within the jurisdiction as citizens i.e. 14th Amendment anchor babies. It is in no way a reference to any doubt or concerns about the status of children of citizens born in the jurisdiction. So Maskell's paragraph above is pure fraud. He is lying to Congress and to us as the American People. (with a capital P).
“Maskell’s paragraph...is pure fraud. He is lying to Congress and to us as the American People. (with a capital P).”
Gray Bar Hotel time for Maskell. Purposefully lying and misdirecting the U.S. Congress is a Federal felony.