It’s the ‘translation’ dead horse again. Let’s ignore that the definition of natural born citizen proposed in Minor v. Happersett and cited by Wong Kim Ark appeared in a passage on ‘natives and citizens’ of whom Vattel described citizenship as ‘naturally’ following at birth the condition of the father. Wow, no one would ever equate natural citizenship at birth with the contemporaneously used term natural born citizen.
“Let’s ignore that the definition of natural born citizen proposed in Minor v. Happersett and cited by Wong Kim Ark appeared in a passage on ‘natives and citizens’ of whom Vattel described citizenship as ‘naturally’ following at birth the condition of the father.”
Ummm...Minor v. Happersett wrote:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. 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 [p168] 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.”
To repeat: “Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
They then allow that there is a DISPUTE over the status of children born of alien parents, which the Court in that case did not attempt to decide. However, they referenced COMMON LAW for guidance, not Vattel!
It is dishonest to claim they proposed a definition of NBC IAW Vattel. And yes, they DID “...equate natural citizenship at birth with the contemporaneously used term natural born citizen” - only not always in the way you desire.