“Except that nothing in the decision ever says that natural born citizen is the American version of natural born subject. “
What they wrote:
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution...
...The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.
That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.
The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, 2 Whart.Int.Dig. (2d ed.) p. 394; by Attorney General Black in 1859, 9 Opinions, 373, and by Attorney General Bates in 1862, 10 Opinions, 328, 382, 394, 396.
Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the “general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,” says:
Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . .
The full opinion goes in to much more detail, but no one reading it can doubt but that the Supreme Court has already decided that NBC = NBS, and the citizenship of the parents irrelevant to NBC as it is to NBS.
Nice of you to provide such easy pickings.
“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.” Obama ADMITS his citizenship was governed under British law. There’s no legal documentation that puts him within the allegiance of the United States. The other part of this you don’t seem to want to admit, is that case was acknowledging that persons born in the United States were either English or American depending on how they chose their allegiance. Their children would naturally follow the conditions of their parents.
“The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:” The Supreme Court of North Carolina doesn’t trump the Minor decision and definition. Second, this decision undermines your claim. “... all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State ...” We’re not arguing over who are born citizens of the State, but since this ONLY applies to free persons, we immediately see that this DOES NOT incorporate the so-called English common law definition of natural born subjects, which is supposedly EVERYBODY born in the country regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
The Lynch v. Clark ruling is a lower court ruling in New York. The justice does a fairly comprehensive job of reviewing what he calls public law as opposed to common law. He cites Vattel and several other cases. He acknowledges, despite his own insistance that the common law was the rule in all states, a law in Virgina that says “all children, wheresoever born, whose fathers or mothers are or were citizens at the time of birth of such children, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth.” He also says, “The provisions of naturalization laws enacted by Congress, are urged as decisive, that children born here, of alien parents were not citizens.” The judge disagrees, but cites no specific support for why this isn’t true, other than his personal opinion.
None of these citations provide a specific Supreme Court conclusion that natural born subject = natural born citizen ... and none of it overturns the definition provided by Minor. The summary of the case simply says Wong Kim Ark is a citizen of the United States ... a constitutionally distinct and separate term from natural born citizen.