As I read what was posted there were/are two distinct situations noted. In one it is specific as to recognition as to NBC. In the other it is specific as to just citizen. Am I missing something as to these two noted situations?
“Am I missing something as to these two noted situations?”
Context.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [p168] 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.”
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents.”
“Some authorities go further” - thus linking that sentence with the previous sentence: “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
The court didn’t say that some add an additional category, called ‘plain citizen by birth’. They discuss an unquestioned meaning of natural born citizen, and then say “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”