Replies

What a nice coincidence! I was looking at the oral arguments for Tuan Anh Nguyen, and I couldn't find what you said. I did, however, find the following:

Ms Davis: I think it's... I think it's totally clear that jus sanguinis citizenship has a different history than naturalized citizenship and has traditionally by this Court as well as by Congress been treated differently.
Justice Scalia: But has not been called natural born citizenship?
I mean, isn't it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
Ms Davis: Yes, by the same token...
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn't it?
Ms Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can't apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I'm just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don't think you're disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn't it?
Ms Davis: No, Your Honor, I do disagree with that.
I believe that it encompasses jus sanguinis citizenship.
Source

But if you can find where Justice Scalia said what you think he said, please do.
Unless Justice Scalia is now an Obamanut, I think the issue is settled: if you got your citizenship by jus soli, you're a "natural-born citizen."

What he said clearly excludes a child born here one of whose parents was an Englishman rather than an American. That is it plain meaning which you are distorting. Scalia says that it requires "jus soli" but does not say that it does not require anything more and when Davis says that it also embraces "jus sanguinis" Scalia says "maybe." He earlier says that they are not in disagreement. In Schneider v. Rusk in 1964 the Supreme Court recognized that the 14th Amendment allowed for the "native born" but referred to that phrase as different from the "natural born" phrase of Article II.

In 2004 in Sosa v. Alverez-Machain the Supreme Court recognized that there were areas of overlap between common law and the law of nations and held that in those areas one looks particularly to Vattel as authority. Justice Story's opinion in Shanks v. Dupont makes clear that citizenship is such an area as does Marshall's opinon in The Venus which specifically quotes the language of Vattel in question.

Moreover, contrary to your earlier post, Waite, in Minor v. Happersett specifically says that it is doubtful at common law if the Article II phrase goes beyond meaning born in the oountry of parents both of whom are citizens. Further, it is clear at the time of the Framers that patrimony was the most important component of lineage however politically incorrect that may be now.

In addition it is quite clear that the meaning of the Article II phrase was not before the court in Wong Kim Ark. It was not among the questions presented and is never mentioned in the briefing. And Gray engaged in the generalities tha he did because he was trying to protect Arthur, who had appointed him. He was in the position of Sotomayor and Kagan today. Arthur was under pressure in several political quarters because his father was not a U.S. citizen when he was born and, like Obama, he was fighting to suppress the issue.

Here is an index to references to Vattel during the Framers' debates: http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003452%29%29 They seem to refute your contentions.