From the SCOTUS decision previously linked to:
"II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."
Obviously, this language does not apply to aliens in general or aliens only within the kingdom. It applies to "aliens in amity," and then only "so long as they were [also] within the kingdom."
Might "aliens in amity" be similar to the situation of the parents of Wong Kim Ark, who were not just passing through, not just here on a student visa, not just whatever, but at the time of the child's birth "domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein?"
Was it constitutionally redundant (IIRC, this is not my area - lol) for the U.S. Congress to pass laws granting citizenship to "anchor babies"?
I apologize: here's a P.S. to my post regarding the "in amity" qualifier.
I just want to note that the language goes on to state, "Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects." IOW, again, the point is that this is not, on its face, a blanket natural-born status for the children born in England of ALL aliens, but for children born in England of "aliens in amity" with the Crown.
So, again, to apply this provision, one needs to know the legal scope of what it means to be an "alien in amity."
British Law has no force in the US. Try citing a USSC Case to make your point...like this one....
Page 468:
Quote from Minor vs Happersett by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
” ‘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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’
Oops.... that one doesn’t support your contension does it?
Never mind......LOLOLOLOL
Maybe we should try this one?
In United States v. Rhodes, Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne (December 7, 1804 – June 8, 1884) addressed the issue as follows:
To be a Natural Born Citizen one has to be born in a State, or Condition of, Allegiance to the USA. A person with Dual Nationality due to having parents of differing Nationality, who both acknowledged the Birth, is not so born. Their Allegiance is, by definition, divided. Subsequent acquisition of Nationality produces the same problem.”
No, that one doesn’t help either.... does it?
I’m sooooo confused!
Honestly I tried to find a USSC decision that supports your contention ....but none did....sorry.....
SCOTUS dicta on the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” (i.e. two citizen parents, born in country):
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vittal’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vittal)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vittel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vittel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vittal)
Better luck next time!