Correct; to say otherwise would be misrepresenting my position, which is the Court decided that the 14th Amendment was based on the much older, pre-existing position of jus soli and thus was foundational in the legal decision.
The Court DID NOT declare that birth jus soli makes one a "natural-born citizen", but it DID declare that birth jus soli makes one a "citizen".
Sure, and I have not argued otherwise.
To say ANYTHING ELSE about the Ark decision makes you a liar.
Which is the position of most in this thread who claim some undefined position regarding NBC status without even the references of Ark. Rather, liar may be too strong, but delusional perhaps fits better.
We already know from the citizenship act of the very first Congress, passed in 1790, that the very men who set up these United States did not hold to the position of Vattel; witness their explicit declaration of those born overseas to two citizen parents were natural born citizens (yes, they use that very phrase, natural born citizen).
So we have settled case law of a Supreme Court decision (upheld by later cases as well) that positively references the English common law position of jus soli in the majority decision. And we have a law passed by the very first Congress that explicitly runs counter to Vattel.
Yet somehow the "proper" position is that Vattel is the our foundation when it comes to citizenship? That takes a pretty willful suspension of logic and reason.
Ok, I'll bit. Let's explore that law approved March 26, 1790:
BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any Common Law Court of Record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon ; and thereupon such person,shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any State, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act: of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
There was no distinction as to the birth location of children born to aliens in the 1790 Act. Therefore, there was no such thing as birthright citizenship based soley on jus soli without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Had there been they would have said children of aliens born abroad. I say again... there was NO DISTINCTION as to the birth location of a child born to an alien. They were NOT citizens until the parents themselves became citizens.