Replies

Agreed. Keeping in mind that Minor was about voting rights, and that all citizens, of any class, could vote, it would seem the only relevant distinction to be made is the one Minor did make: between citizens and "aliens and foreigners". After all, if all cars have four wheels, any discussion on Buicks vs. Chevys is irrelevant. It's a car, it has four wheels. If all citizens vote, of what relevance is it whether Minor is a Buick or a Chevy?

So, as edge919 would have it, immediately after MvH draws the relevant distinction, between NBCs and "aliens and foreigners", it then suddenly stops and says, "Oh, BTW, there's also this little distinction between NBCs and second-class citizens, but, hey, that's irrelevant here, so we're sorry we brought it up." (Not to mention that "hey, that's irrelevant here" is the very definition of a dictum, and we know what they say about dicta and precedence.)

Of course, I'm just repeating what you said:

all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction"--is what you claim defines an NBC

On edge919's logic, we must have at least two different definitions of "citizen" being bandied about in MvH (leaving aside those instances in which Waite himself specifically qualifies the term, as in "natural born citizen"). I count six instances of the unqualified use of "citizen" or "citizenship". Thrice in reference to parents: "parents who were its citizens", "citizenship of the parents" and "citizen parents". Twice in reference to those parents' children: "became themselves, on their birth, citizens also" and "are themselves citizens". And the last is the disputed case: "include as citizens".

Now (edge919 will correct me if I'm wrong), I don't believe birthers place any restrictions on the citizenship of the parents. They could be themselves NBCs, they could be naturalized, or they could be a member of this "second-class citizenship". Any combination of those will produce NBC offspring. Thus, where addressed to the parents, "citizen" and "citizenship" must be understood in a expansive sense that encompasses all manner of citizenship.

Next are the two applications to the children. In the first, MvH states, "became ... citizens also." Now whatever Justice Waite had in mind for "citizen" here, he specifically rules out the "second-class citizen" definition in his very next sentence: "these were natives, or natural born citizens". So the only way to understand "citizen" here (remember that I'm discounting the possibility that "citizen" and "NBC" are simply synonyms) is in the same expansive sense as it was applied to the parents. This accords well with Waite's "also" which is clearly intended to equate the citizenship of the children with that of the parents. And if he means that in the first application to children, he can't mean anything else in the second.

So all told "citizen" or "citizenship" occurs eight times in this passage. Twice Waite specifically qualifies the term with "natural born". Five times we see that it must be understood in an expansive, inclusive sense. But then we're asked to believe that, in this one instance only, Waite muddies the waters by suddenly switching to a restrictive, COOFCiP ("child of one or fewer citizen parents" -- just made that up :-) ) sense before just as suddenly switching back again. One might think that if Waite meant something different here, he'd have the courtesy to either use different terminology or at the very least qualify his use the way he did with "natural born" previously. From this point forward we're forced to stop at every occurrence of "citizen" and debate which meaning Waite intends, or wonder if he's introducing yet another unsigned definition.

The birther is faced with other problems as well, of course. For example, we're to believe that immediately after explicitly telling us that he's looking to common law to define NBC, Waite procedes to define NBC in direct opposition to the common law definition. Unless,that is, someone here wants to argue that common law ever required two citizen parents. I'd be interested in seeing that argument.

Further, since Minor describes this "second-class citizen" as "born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents", and since "born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" is inclusive of NBCs (even birthers presumably acknowledge that NBCs were born in the jurisdiction), then we are forced to the conclusion that NBCs must be a sub-class of "citizens", not a separate class from it. But if NBCs are a sub-class of "citizen", then how then could there be doubts about the second class, but not the first? "As to the existence of humans there have been some doubts, but never as to the existence of women" defies all logic. What birthers in fact need Waite to have said is, "Some authorities go further and include all children born in the jurisdiction of one or fewer citizen parents". Too bad he didn't. Of course, all these problems go away if we just assume synonymity between "citizen" and "NBC".