In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 1898 [found that] [W]hen the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.
It appears the Supreme Court in Elg (1939) agrees with Ark (1898).
(Both Marie Elizabeth Elg and Wong Kim Ark were born on U.S. soil to parents who were here legally but not U.S. citizens.)
Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended. What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered an NBC was. The Supreme Court decisions based on the good-faith and sound finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC.
Some argue that the term "NBC" is not specifically used in Ark or Elg, but these cases revolve around citizenship based on birth on U.S. soil, which is exactly what NBC is. An NBC is a citizen automatically because he was born on U.S. soil. He is “naturally” and automatically a citizen needing no further processing to become a U.S. citizen. He becomes a citizen under “natural” (birth) circumstances, exactly as Elg, Ark.
The key here is being born on U.S. soil to parents who were in the U.S. legally which excludes "anchor babies" whose parents are not in the U.S. legally.
If that is what it is, then why did they need the 14th amendment?
Weren't all the slaves born on US Soil? Indians too?
If that is the rule, why didn't it apply to slaves and Indians? Why did there have to be made special laws to make it apply to these two groups?