continue reading... "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."
Currently, all persons born in the US are given citizenship including "anchor babies" whether we think it is right or not, that is the law. The case you cited specifically defines 2 types of citizen. Naturalized and natural born. They just balk when it comes to answering whether children of foreigners get the natural born status, but that precedent has long since been answered.
And??? It says one defintion has doubt and the other doesn't. And despite saying it's not necessary to solve the doubts, Minor does anyway by acknowledging that original naturalization acts were dependent on alien parents becoming naturalized before their children could be citizens. If they believed the children of aliens were automatically citizens, then there's no need for the 14th amendment.
Currently, all persons born in the US are given citizenship including "anchor babies" whether we think it is right or not, that is the law. The case you cited specifically defines 2 types of citizen. Naturalized and natural born. They just balk when it comes to answering whether children of foreigners get the natural born status, but that precedent has long since been answered.
The precedent is that the 14th amendment creates citizens of the United States, but not natural born citizens unless the parents are citizens. This is covered in the Wong Kim Ark decision.