That's funny. I can hear him calling to you, saying "Hey, DumbDumb, those portions are where I was talking about the specific problem of INDIANS!" Now you are flailing. In context this is clearly about immigrants and their children, not Indians.
John Bingham (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth — natural born citizens. There is no such word as white in your constitution. Citizenship, therefore does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of your laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, and are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
Now you are flailing. In context this is clearly about immigrants and their children, not Indians. Yeah, I was in too much of a hurry. I had dealt with that one back in around March. I forgot to note the date -- 1862 -- which means it has nothing to do with the debates over the later legislation.
You're still lacking a theory of how Bingham could supposedly be at odds with his House Judiciary Chair, who makes the rule absolutely clear:
"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."
It's not enough to quote Bingham. You have to justify how your view of what Bingham is saying could conflict with what others around him were saying, yet apparently no one was concerned about reconciling the difference? When legilators come to vote, whose understanding are they accepting? Howard (draftsman of the citizenship clause), Trumbull (draftsman of the corresponding citizenship clause) and Wilson (who submits extensive authorities to support his jus soli view of "existing law"? Or (your suppose view on) Bingham? You've read on this is incoherent and unexplained. You act like posting large photos of Bingham somehow makes your weak argument stronger.
I submit they are all in agreement, as reflected in the 1869 remark by Bingham.
