“Waite confirmed that children born of an alien father was at birth an alien.”
False. Waite confirmed no such thing, in fact, opposite to this, he noted that:
“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 ...”
It is false that Waite said that children born in the US of alien parents were aliens. On the contrary, he noted some authorities have stated that they too were natural-born citizens. Some of these sources and authorities have been shared, and some were used in Wong Kim Ark to explain their conclusion that children of aliens born in the US WERE US citizens at birth. But for Waite, ‘there have been doubts’. he did not make a statement one way or the other on the question..
Your posting of a page and a half of his ruling, while failing to show the one sentence of particular relevance to this matter, misleads rather than informs. Ultimately, making claims like this based on selective quoting that don’t hold water even on cursory examination convinces nobody and discredits your conclusions.
The full key quote in context:
“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
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.”
Now who is the delusional one? Waite CONFIRMED at the time the Constitution was written there were 2 types of citizens, born & naturalized:
Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization...
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...
He then went on to state that the phrase “all person” was an all “comprehensive” term, hence it encompassed the entire family, husband/father, wife/mother & children. Families/households were under but ONE allegiance. Waite then immediately referred to the 1 Naturalization Act of the US Congress which stated:
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States
What Waite was saying is that under the common law that the framers were familiar with, children follow the nationality of the father and thus unless the father was a citizen, the children were resident aliens and thus either became citizens upon the naturalization of the father or they became a citizen of their own consent when reaching the age to do so.
We are a Nation built on natural law of “CITIZENDHSIP BY CONSENT” not “CONFERRED SUBJECTSHIP” that only exists in Monarchical, Dictatorships & Totalitarian societies.
I realize this is a hard common sense & biblically based concept that goes back to Adam & Eve. A common law rule that was founded in England prior to the feudal doctrines of changing oppressive kings
Clark's (Oxford, England) Discourse on political & social dynamics: "In the Savoy", 1738; "State Trials, Vol 2", London 1809 & Clive Perry, "British Nationality", London 1951
"English nationality was acquired, indelibly, by birth within the realm to parents who were themselves subjects"
and Waite said in Minor:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar...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
You see, you try to use WKA as your source when WKA doesn't even give the true picture of English subjectship. Gray only cites the feudal doctrine that came centuries after the 1st English constitution was written. The feudal law you cling to is "statute law" not natural law according to Tucker:
common law = ancient, immemorial, unwritten law of England, may be divided into the jus commune
statute law = jura corona, or lex prerogativa, those prerogatives which appertained strictly to the person of the prince; and secondly, such as regarded him in his political capacity, only; as the supreme head and ruler of the nation
Subjectship was a "PEROGATIVE" of the king or prince and there was no consent on the part of the individual, tacit or otherwise. So while you read Blackstone, you neglect to read Tucker's Appendixes that explain why Blackstone's English law is NOT that of the US.