The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized
Therefore, persons born with a foreign parent and owing allegiance to a foreign nation are not thereby subject to the "COMPLETE" political jurisdiction of the United States. The word "natural" before born was not needed because the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" defines those who are born & naturalized, owing one allegiance, either at birth or naturalization.
1859 Buchanan Admin Op (9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859)) that is the foundation of the 14th Amendment:
“The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”
“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”
1868 Expatriation Act, passed just days after the 14th & is called the "Sister Act" to the 14th:
Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed
Just because there are two “sources” of citizenship doesn't mean that within one of those two sources, citizen at birth, there could be two sub-classes.
One subclass of citizens at birth, NBC, NO DOUBT was eligible to be POTUS. Another class of citizens at birth was identified in ARK as being the children of aliens and foreigners, such as ARK, about whom there previously was DOUBT (as stated in Minor).
Incontrovertably, after WKA there were two classes of citizens at birth:
1. A2 NBC citizens born in the country of citizen parents
2. 14A children of aliens foreigners
The Elk court affirmed the Minor court's definition of NBC and used it to declare Elk to be in the A2 NBC class of citizen at birth, not in the 14A class of citizen at birth.
The Elk case is NOT on point with the facts and circumstances of Barry's birth and life and is not a precedent for assessing his NBC status.
The Elk was case about the US born child of naturalized parents (mother got US citizenship when father naturalized...so two US citizen parents at birth) who was expatriated by her parents at the age of 4, IIRC. After Elk was denied reentry to the US as an adult, SCOTUS said Elk retained her NBC status from birth because Elk herself didn't renounce her US citizenship.
(please disregard my previous comment wherein I conflated the Elk case with the Elg case...my new, improved comment follows)
Just because there are two “SOURCES” of citizenship doesn't mean that within one of those two sources, citizen at birth, there could be two SUBCLASSES.
The Minor court defined one subclass of citizens at birth, NBC, NO DOUBT was eligible to be POTUS. Another class of citizens at birth was identified in Minor and affirmed in WKA as being the children of aliens and foreigners, such as baby WKA, about whom there previously was DOUBT (as stated in Minor).
Elk was decided after the passage of the 14A, after Minor v. Happersett, but before WKA. Just as in WKA, the issue in Elk was whether Elk was a 14A citizen born, not whether Elk was a NBC a birth. Distinguishing Elk from WKA is that the 14A issue in ElK was whether Elk was born subject to Indian national sovereignty as opposed to Chinese sovereignty. Plaintiff Elk was not claiming to be an NBC at birth as his parents were not US citizens and were under Indian nation sovereignty (not taxed). Elk ONLY claimed to be a 14A citizen at birth.
Note that the identification of Indians in the Constitution is in the context of sovereignty (Indians not taxed), not race, IIRC.
Incontrovertibly, in addition to naturalized citizens, after MvH and WKA there were two classes of citizens at BIRTH:
1. A2 NBC citizens born in the country of citizen parents
2. 14A children of aliens foreigners meeting the narrow WKA criteria of domicile and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA...the complete jurisdiction according to Elk.
The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393),
(you stopped there yet the sentence continued...see the comma?)
and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306
Then you carry on with the rest.
Why did you leave that off without even placing an ellipsis?