"However, historically, the Founding Fathers (almost to a certainty) meant that an NBC was born under United States jurisdiction to two citizen parents.This fits into English Common Law, upon which our law was derived."
Not true.
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.""III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
The English Common Law, as the Supreme Court explained here, was that someone born in the country is a "natural born subject", regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
The English Common Law, as the Supreme Court explained here, was that someone born in the country is a “natural born subject”, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
***
Au contraire – mon frere …
You have fallen into the Wong Kim Ark v. United States trap – like many others before you (including me, awhile back, until I really read the SCOTUS decision carefully).
Why, you may ask ???
Because if the NBC issue HAD been settled by Ark, NONE of the citizenship cases (Berg, Donofrio, etc.) would have been dismissed for “lack of standing”. They would have been dismissed under the principle of “stare decisis” (that which has been decided) – what we commonly refer to as SCOTUS precedent, and Ark WOULD HAVE BEEN CITED as the precedent.
If you read Ark CAREFULLY, you will find that the case was decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment – and the 14th Amendment ONLY. The 14th Amendment ONLY stipulates who is AUTOMATICALLY a citizen – NOT who is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. No where in the decision will you see that Ark was declared to be a Natural Born Citizen. His attorney claimed that he was – but SCOTUS only declared him to be a CITIZEN.
You NOT ONLY need to read the decision - BUT ALL of the citiations contained in it.
I will send you a private reply - I go through each pertinent citation and will show you WHAT each REALLY says. I am about 3/4 done with it ...
I WOULD post it here - BUT, it is SO MASSIVE that I think the FR MODS would get P.O’d if I posted it.